Dialogue in biosphere reserves

Dialogue in biosphere reserves - UNESDOC

#*041)&3&3&4&37&45&$)/*$"-/05&4%JBMPHVFJOCJPTQIFSFSFTFSWFT3&'&3&/$&413"$5*$&4BOE&91&3*&/$&4
ISSN 2071-1468
DIALOGUE in BIOSPHERE RESERVES:
REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of the
viewpoints and information contained in their articles, which in no way
commit UNESCO. The designations employed and the presentation
of data throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Publication manager: Natarajan Ishwaran
Editor-in-Chief: Meriem Bouamrane
Graphic design: Ivette Fabbri and Mirian Querol
Cover photograph: Hubert de Foresta, IRD
Translation: Zoe Andreyev
This work is the follow-up of a training period undertaken by
Matthieu Deldicque in the Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences,
directed by Meriem Bouamrane and supervised by Jean-Eudes Beuret,
ENSAR and was realized in cooperation with the French National
Commission to UNESCO.
We would like to especially thank the following individuals for their
cooperation and inputs in the making of this note: Salvatore Arico,
Andrew Bell, Nicolas Bondil, Amadou Boureima, Catherine Cibien,
Miguel Clüsener-Godt, Guillaume Couturier, Pete Frost, Stéphane Garnier,
Malcolm Hadley, Mireille Jardin, Sami Mankoto, Didier Lecuyer, Valérie
Meyer, Thomas Schaaf, Marja Spierenburg, Ken Reyna and Rodrigo Victor.
Proposed citation: Bouamrane, M. (ed). 2007
Dialogue in biosphere reserves:
references, practices and experiences
Biosphere Reserves – Technical Notes 2
UNESCO, Paris
Published in February 2008
By the MAB Programme, UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel: 33(0) 1 45 68 40 67
Fax : 33 (0) 45 68 58 04
E-mail : [email protected]
www.unesco.org/mab
Printed by I.T.C.
Grigny
Printed in France
2
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Foreword
or over thirty years, and especially since the adoption by the UNESCO General
Conference of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework (UNESCO, 1996),
the biosphere reserves of the World Network have encouraged and facilitated
dialogue on resource use among stakeholders and institutions.
Dialogue plays a central role in the effort to reconcile conservation and development, in
the understanding, management and prevention of conflicts and in the elaboration of rules
for the use of and access to resources in biosphere reserves. Dialogue may be conducted either
on a permanent or an ad hoc basis; it can concern an entire land or only a specific resource,
ecosystem or area. Though the dialogue process is important during the entire life span of a
biosphere reserve, there are certain key moments when it is crucial: at the time of its creation
and during the periodic review.
In 2005, the Secretariat launched a research and training programme on Dialogue and
Concertation in biosphere reserves. Its aims were:
■ to determine the needs of biosphere reserves in terms of conflict management and
prevention;
■ to identify and involve national researchers working on these questions;
■ to analyse existing practices in the field of dialogue and concertation with local
stakeholders, in matters of compromise-seeking between biodiversity conservation and
development;
■ to analyse and publicize the experiences of certain biosphere reserves which can be
shared within the World Network;
■ to promote exchanges among biosphere reserves on this theme.
� � � � � � �
� � � �
��
In 2006, case studies were conducted in eleven biosphere reserves on the experience
and practice of dialogue, and a technical note entitled “Biodiversity and stakeholders:
concertation itineraries” was published by the Secretariat in three languages.
The purpose of the present note is to provide a reference on the implementation of
the recommendations of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework in matters of
dialogue and concertation. As a guide to carrying out effective and efficient dialogue, its
aim is to promote the exchange among biosphere reserves of knowledge and experiences on
the field so as to better share not only practices, but the wealth and diversity of knowledge
and know-how to be found in various political, economic, social and cultural contexts as
well. Four chapters are devoted to the four key moments in the life of a biosphere reserve,
and a fifth discusses how the issues involved in knowledge and know-how sharing within
the World Network can make biosphere reserves into genuine learning laboratories for the
concrete application of sustainable development.
Natarajan Ishwaran
Secretary of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme
Director of the Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences
3
Table of contents
Foreword
..................................................................
3
Dialogue in the itinerary of biosphere reserve creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When should the dialogue begin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Who are the participants in the dialogue? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How to begin the dialogue? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The outputs of dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
6
8
14
20
Chapter I
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 2
The biosphere reserve, a forum for dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Optimizing existing concertation mechanisms and creating forums for dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Facilitating the participation of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The link between conservation and development as a basis for dialogue and cooperation . . . . . . .
Coordinating dialogue within the biosphere reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
24
26
32
35
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 3
Dialogue in conflict analysis and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Conflict analysis in biosphere reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Dialogue in conflict management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 4
The Periodic Review: a key moment in the dialogue process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A Self-evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Meriem Bouamrane
An example of companion approach which could be used during the periodic review . . . . . . . . . . 53
Michel Etienne, Catherine Cibien, Jean Claude Génot
Chapter 5
The dialogue within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves
...........
61
.................................
66
Meriem Bouamrane
Annex 1: Dialogue in the Seville Strategy
Annex 2: Other practices in biosphere reserves
...........................
67
....................................................
75
.................................................................
80
Selective bibliography
Acronyms
4
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 1
Dialogue
in the itinerary of
biosphere reserve creation
5
When
should the dialogue begin?
ART. 4 OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF THE WORLD
NETWORK:
GENERAL
CRITERIA FOR AN AREA TO BE QUALIFIED
FOR DESIGNATION AS A BIOSPHERE RESERVE
CRITERION 6: Organizational arrangements should be
provided for the involvement and participation
of a suitable range of inter alia public authorities,
local communities and private interests
in the design and carrying out of the functions
of a biosphere reserve.
The dialogue begins prior
to the creation of the biosphere reserve
The dialogue must begin as soon as possible (Beuret,
2006a; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004), before any decisions are made concerning the creation of the biosphere
reserve. It is important to ensure that all options remain
open when the dialogue starts, and that the possible scenarii for the future of the land are not fixed in advance.
Opening the dialogue before the process starts ensures a maximum level of involvement and establishes
trust between the different participants, at the same time
enabling the latter to acquire a full understanding of the
object of the dialogue.
The establishment of dialogue prior to the creation
of a biosphere reserve meets two objectives (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, op. cit.):
The legitimation of a choice of development:
sustainable development
The dialogue’s objective is not to end up with a result that was decided beforehand by those who initiated
the dialogue or those who support the biosphere reserve
project. The aim is first and foremost to build together a
project that will be significant for the future of the land.
“The objectives of land, water and living resource management are a matter of societal choice” (Ecosystem Approach, Principle 1).
The construction of a common view must take place
prior to the itinerary of the creation of a biosphere reserve, which represents only one facet of sustainable development.
The legitimation of the biosphere reserve
Once all the stakeholders have understood the importance of sustainable development and the benefits
6
they can garner from such a project for the land and
the resources, they must raise the question of whether
a biosphere reserve can meet these aims. What are the
advantages of creating a biosphere reserve, given the targeted objectives1? In what way is a biosphere reserve an
effective instrument for the conservation of biodiversity
and sustainable development? In what way is it different
and what does it add to existing protected areas (national parks, natural reserves, …)? The responses to these
concerns must be the object of collective construction2.
If successful, this dual legitimation should encourage
strong involvement on the part of the biosphere reserve
stakeholders, who will have learned and understood together first of all the tight link between environmental
conservation and economically, socially and culturally
sustainable development, and secondly, the fact that a
biosphere reserve is a tool which can make it possible to
achieve these aims.
This approach needs time (sometimes several years),
but the time invested in this common learning process
and in obtaining the trust of the stakeholders is the basis for the sustainable management of the site and for
the implementation of a culture of dialogue among the
stakeholders (Textbox n° 1).
Building dialogue on the way…
Moving towards
the application of the Seville Strategy
Many biosphere reserves created before the Seville
Strategy (1995) were not rooted in the participation
or consultation of local and native communities. Very
often, they were created as protected areas dedicated
mainly to conservationist goals in areas with restricted
access to land and resources. In such cases, initiative for
the creation of a biosphere reserve usually comes from a
state institution (top-down approach) and the basis for
dialogue can be extremely fragile, due to past relationships between the state and local stakeholders. This is
the “path-dependency” phenomenon. In order to initiate
the process of sustainable management, the construction
of dialogue must be oriented towards the local legitimation of the biosphere reserve (Textbox n°2).
1. See UNESCO. 2005. Biosphere reserves – Advantages and Opportunities.
Sourd, C . 2004. Explique-moi les réserves de biosphère. Coll. A la
découverte du monde. Ed UNESCO/Nouvelle Arche de Noé Editions..
2. A concern often expressed has to do with the word “reserve”, which evokes
such notions as “restrictions”, “area reserved for wilderness”, “exclusion
of man”, notions which are remote from the concept of biosphere reserve.
Educational work is necessary to help stakeholders understand the concept
of biosphere reserve.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The creation of the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
I
n the 1980s, an agricultural development project
aimed to dam up the flood plain of the Lac SaintPierre. This event raised the ecological awareness of
part of the population and led to a dialogue between
the different local stakeholders (farmers, agronomists;
biologists, environmentalist NGOs, ...). This local dialogue made it possible to build a project respecting
the interests of the various parties, and several years
later (in 1987), protected areas were created north and
south of the Lac Saint-Pierre, thanks to the acquisition
of land by local and North-American NGOs (e.g. the
SARCEL NGO). Conservationist NGOs and hunters also
launched several joint initiatives (many members of
conservationist NGOs are hunters).
In 1990, a project for a national park, followed by
a biosphere reserve, was considered. The project was
abandoned a year and a half later due to opposition to
the national park project, which would have led to the
expropriation of several thousand people. However, the
idea of a biosphere reserve was maintained and popularized by Normand Garriepy, member of an association
active on the western side of the lake, and a feasibility
study was carried out by the Tourist Office. Local and
regional authorities, as well as private actors (a steelworks factory, for example) were lobbied.
The project then won a competition for environmental projects organized by the Canadian government,
which brought recognition and funds. This project
brought together the various stakeholders who had
been active in the Lac Saint-Pierre area since 1980 and
was supported by four regional administrations.
Thanks to repeated public meetings and events,
the project received the support of all the territorial institutions: 26 municipalities, the Regional County Municipalities, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry
of Fauna and the Defense Ministry. This concertation
process, prior to the creation of the biosphere reserve
made it possible to set up a genuine culture of dialogue
in the site.
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 1
Other practices in biosphere reserves (Annex 2):
Cape West Coast (South Africa); São Paulo Green Belt
(Brazil), Sierra Gorda (Mexico), Waterberg (South Africa).
Textbox n° 2
The Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve:
building dialogue
on the way (INDIA)
Creation of
the protected
reserve
Nanda Devi
Sanctuary
1939
Creation
of a national
park excluding
human use
(tourism,
pastures, …)
The site becomes
a UNESCO World
Heritage
1988
Creation of the national biosphere reserve,
its core area corresponding to the national
park. The management structure works
in the buffer zone in order to facilitate
the access of local populations
to alternative sources of income, in order
to reduce the pressure on resources.
There is still little dialogue.
CHAPTER 1 –
Recognition
by UNESCO of the
Nanda Devi
Biosphere Reserve
2004
1999
1982
1977
Two events encouraged the management structure
of the biosphere reserve to open up more to dialogue:
the civil disobedience movement of the inhabitants
of a village located near the core area (they collected
plants in the core area as a sign of protest)
and the insistence of some sponsors on more dialogue
concerning the management of natural resources.
2003
Ecodevelopment committees are created.
These are concertation forums, at the village level, which
propose activities and develop microprojects, for which
the management structure must find funds.
During that year, limited ecotourism activities
(9 km of trekking paths are opened) are allowed
in the core area.
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
7
Who are the participants
in the dialogue?
EXCERPT FROM THE SEVILLE STRATEGY:
OBJECTIVE II.1.5: Survey the interests of the
various stakeholders and fully involve
them in planning and decision-making
regarding the management and use of the
biosphere reserve.
The difficulty of identifying
the stakeholders of a biosphere reserve
“Any person whose actions affect a biosphere reserve, as a user of resources or the areas it covers, as a
person making a claim on certain of the environmental
resources it supports, or as an entity taking institutional
action, is a stakeholder in this biosphere reserve.”1
This definition shows the difficulty of “listing” the
stakeholders of a biosphere reserve, the persons who
will become the “partners” of a system of concerted and
sustainable management of the area and its resources.
The identification of stakeholders is closely linked to the
local context. Figure 1 shows the various stakeholders
that can be found in a biosphere reserve.
Thus we see that when choosing stakeholders, there
are many ways of describing those who can legitimately
participate and of granting them weight and a role in the
dialogue and decision-making processes. For example,
stakeholders can be represented according to their degree of involvement in the management of the land and
the resources2.
■ co-managers: these are the stakeholders actively involved in the management of the site, either because
they work on the site itself (direct managers) or because they represent a political authority (elected
representative, local chief, religious leader, ...) or
because they represent economic power in the area.
■ “resource” stakeholders: these are stakeholders who
have knowledge and competence, whether scientific
or local.
■ citizens: these are stakeholders who carry a demand
for a product or service. This demand may concern
the protection of a resource or an ecosystem, such as
access to and use of an area.
These three categories of stakeholders are not mutually
exclusive. A farmer is a direct manager of his environment due to his activity, but he also possesses knowledge
of the natural environment (e.g. quality of the soil, local
water network), and he can also have certain demands
��
linked to land management (e.g. the need for a road to
��
go and sell his products, the protection of a natural area
for leisure). An environmental NGO obviously
��
��
represents the demand for environmental pro��
��
tection, but can also possess precious knowl��
��
edge on the functioning of ecosystems and be
��
��
��
involved in conservation actions, in partner��
��
ship with the local population.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Figure 1: Stakeholders circle
Source: UNESCO. 2001. Steps and tools
towards integrated coastal area management.
Methodological guide.
8
What is the dialogue’s spatial
framework?
The spatial aspect of the dialogue is essential in a
biosphere reserve. This space, composed of resources, is
both the framework and the object of the dialogue. It is
thus important to agree upon the limits of the dialogue’s
1. Beuret, J.-E. 2006a). Dialogue and concertation in biosphere reserves:
issues and challenges. Bouamrane, M. (ed.) 2006. Biodiversity and
stakeholders: concertation itineraries. Biosphere reserves – Technical
Notes 1. UNESCO, Paris.
2. Adapted from European Commission. 2003. Common implementation
Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. (200/60/EC). Guidance
on Public Participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive.
Guidance Document n°8.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The management structures
of the Montseny Biosphere Reserve:
an example of pluralism (SPAIN)
■
■
■
Ideological pluralism represented by the administrative structure of the Montseny Natural
Park, made up of local elected representatives,
and which is responsible for decision-making
as concerns the implementation of the management plan.
Spatial pluralism represented by the coordination council of the biosphere reserve, made up
of municipal elected officials and representatives of the different administrative scales in
charge of maintaining the balance — in interadministrative relations— between sovereignty
and autonomy, unity and diversity, cooperation
and competition.
Pluralism of interests and customs, as represented by the advisory commission, made up
of representatives of the different socioeconomic and cultural sectors.
spatial framework, which is not always obvious in a biosphere reserve (Textbox n°3). For this reason, the site’s
coherence must be examined from all angles.
A biosphere reserve is a heterogeneous cluster
of coherent socio-territorial units
A biosphere reserve is only rarely made up of a single, socially and culturally coherent geographical unit.
It is important to identify and describe these different
units in order to set up dialogue and implement resulting actions at the most relevant level.
The question of the transition area
The limits of the transition area are not always clearly defined. This makes it possible to change the borders
of the biosphere reserve, and thus of the dialogue framework, depending on the nature of the issue under discussion. Furthermore, this area of the biosphere reserve can
only receive informal recognition, so as not to frighten
landowners, or the industrial sector, concerning access
or resource use restrictions (Textbox n° 4).
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 3
Textbox n° 4
The Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve:
the division of the transition area into three units (MEXICO)
T
he transition area of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve was divided into three parts on the
basis of the actions which could be achieved in each of
them on the short, medium and long terms.
■ In the Morelos Transition Zone (TZ1), concrete
actions can be considered on the short term thanks
to a dialogue process under way with local stakeholders. A participatory planning process has been
initiated with local communities and projects already jointly carried out with the municipalities indicate that there will be further participation of the
area’s stakeholders in the biodiversity conservation
objectives in the near future.
■ The Guerrero Transition Zone (TZ2) should become a core area/buffer zone on the medium term.
CHAPTER 1 –
■
Protected areas with legal statuses must be created
and a participatory process must be initiated with
the communities.
The Puebla Transition Zone (TZ3) is the part of
the transition area where dialogue with administrations and local communities is least advanced. The
long-term objective is to raise local stakeholders’
awareness of the importance of the sustainable use
of their natural resources.
Thus the spatial framework of the dialogue was developed in such a way as to adapt to the situation of each
of the Transition Zones in the itinerary leading to the
creation of the biosphere reserve.
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
9
Who are
the primary stakeholders?
EXCERPT OF THE SEVILLE STRATEGY
OBJECTIVE IV.1.14: Ensure the participation
of the local community in the planning
and management of biosphere reserves.
The identification of legitimate participants in the
dialogue process is strongly linked to the local context.
However, certain categories of stakeholders must be considered as essential interested parties in the concerted
management of the land: these are the stakeholders directly affected by the creation of a biosphere reserve or
those who have or will have a direct influence on the site
as co-managers.
These “primary” stakeholders can be identified
thanks to the following criteria (adapted from BorriniFeyerabend et al., op.cit.):
■ Customary or legal rights to the land or the natural
resource,
■ A permanent relationship with the natural
environment (e.g. permanent residents),
■ Direct dependency on natural resources for
subsistence,
■ Historical or cultural links with the area and
natural resources,
■ Unique knowledge, competence or traditions
concerning the management of natural resources,
■ Social or economic dependence on natural
resources,
■ Losses or damage incurred due to territorial
management,
■ Demonstrated interest and efforts in managing the
site.
For example, the native and local communities (sedentary or nomad) that have traditionally owned, occupied or used the land and resources present on the
site. They entertain a permanent relationship with the
environment, since they are directly dependent on local
resources, have built historical and cultural links with
their environment, and possess knowledge and knowhow concerning the sustainable use of resources. Since
they correspond to most, if not all the criteria, the local
communities can logically be considered to be primary
stakeholders.
The Seville Strategy emphasizes the involvement of
the local populations in the management of biosphere
reserves. Indeed, one of the key orientations forming the
10
basis of the Seville Strategy underlines the fact that a biosphere reserve must be considered “a ‘pact’ between the
local community and society as a whole”.
According to the previously mentioned criteria, if
the local communities must be considered as essential
stakeholders and for this reason must participate actively in the dialogue and decision-making processes,
it is important to establish real partnership between all
the stakeholders playing a role in the area in order to
integrate the different needs, interests, expectations,
and achieve a sustainable management of spaces and resources (Textbox n° 5).
What are the roles
and powers of the stakeholders?
Just as there are “primary” and “secondary” stakeholders, a concerted management process is based on
different roles and powers. The distribution of roles and
powers between different stakeholders is very important
since it determines the balance of powers among the different partners of the dialogue process.
Indeed, given the objectives (a sustainable and fair
management of resources), the very possibility and effectiveness of the dialogue process depends on the balance
of powers. “Dialogue implies equality”1 (Edgar Morin).
On the contrary, if powers are not balanced, one observes that dialogue can have a contrary effect (Blondiaux, 2004), reinforcing inequalities and even leading to
the exclusion of a stakeholder: groups more socially or
culturally likely to get involved in this type of process
can end up imposing their private interests on the others
(Mormont, 2006).
Thus, in order to ensure the success of concertation
itineraries it is essential to achieve a balanced distribution of roles and powers in the management of the site
and to reinforce stakeholders’ capacity to participate.
An advisory role
Numerous biosphere reserves have an advisory committee which gives recommendations to the management
authorities. It is generally made up of experts (scientific,
NGO, territorial public administration) as well as representatives of different interest groups (local communities, industries, …). This body may meet regularly or
ad hoc for a specific question raised by a stakeholder of
the reserve. This role is limited to a restricted number of
participants (Textbox n°6).
The advisory role may also be played by a larger
panel of stakeholders, thanks to the organization of advisory meetings. They may meet on a regular basis in order
1. UNESCO. 2004. Dialogue entre les civilisations, Le nouveau Courrier,
janvier 2004, Numéro spécial , p. 8.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Analysis of the stakeholders of the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve (COLOMBIA)
I
n the framework of the elaboration of a management
plan for the ground water of the San Andreas Island
in the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve (2000-2009), an
analysis of stakeholders was conducted, for the following purposes:
■ Identification of the stakeholders and their
characteristics;
■ Analysis of the way stakeholders can be affected by the project or can have an impact on it;
■ Understanding relationships among stakeholders, including analysis of actual and potential
conflicts, expectations of the different groups
of stakeholders;
■ Analysis of the different stakeholders’ ability to
participate in the project.
The methodology applied was the following:
■ List all stakeholders concerned
and describe how each can be affected by or can affect the project,
��
whether positively or negatively;
��
■ Classify the actors in three categories:
1. Primary stakeholders, who
can by affected by the project
negatively or positively;
��
2 Secondary stakeholders, who
��
play an intermediary role and
can be institutions or persons
involved in the implementation of the project;
3. Key stakeholders, who can influence the project
in a significant way and are important for the
project’s success;
■
■
Identify the stakeholders’ interests (economic,
environmental, cultural …) in the project;
Draw up an “influence - importance” map:
Importance: priority given to satisfying the stakeholder’s interests and involving him/her in the
project.
Influence: the stakeholder’s power over the project,
in particular as concerns decision-making and
the capacity to facilitate its implementation.
The analysis of stakeholders made it possible to understand the needs, abilities, roles and responsibilities of
each and to identify the degree of participation of the
different interest groups in the design, implementation
and assessment of the management plan.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 5
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Other practices in biosphere reserves (Annex 2):
Men and women: perceptions and aspirations which
can be different at times and which must be taken into
account: the case of Nanda Devi (India)
to gather stakeholders’ opinions on current management
issues and obtain their recommendations for the future
on specific subjects.
An important question regarding consultation is the
integration of recommendations and opinions given in
the decision-making process. The link between consultation and decision must be clearly defined and made
known to all the stakeholders. Lack of transparency in
this respect may lead to discouragement among consulted stakeholders if they feel their input is useless.
CHAPTER 1 –
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
11
Responsibility and authority
in the decision-making process:
Decision-making is an essential stage in the planning and management process on a given site. Two main
questions must be addressed:
Who makes the decision?
This means determining the decision-making scale,
that is, at what level of land management (local, national, regional) a given type of decision must be made. The
subsidiarity principle, – the fact that the responsibility
for a decision belongs to the lowest level possessing that
competence, that is, as near as possible to the citizens
– is thus very important. « Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level» (Ecosystem Approach, principle 2).
However, a fundamental element of that principle is
the coordination among the different decision-making
levels. One sometimes speaks of active subsidiarity1 to
refer to the links between “bottom-up” and “top-down”
approaches.
Next, the stakeholders who will be accountable in
the decision-making process must be identified. This
can be done through a detailed analysis of stakeholders. Those who have certain rights (property, access, use)
over the land and resources are also key actors on this
space, since they can either block or on the contrary facilitate and even promote the enforcement of a decision.
How is the decision made?
It is important to inform all stakeholders about the
decision-making procedures. Is a decision made by a
single stakeholder (local or national authority), through
consensus, or through a vote?
The shift from the dialogue phase to the deliberation
phase must be transparent, so that local stakeholders
will not feel their participation has been purely symbolic
and only serves to legitimize a decision already made beforehand (Blondiaux, op. cit.).
Finally, decision-makers must be accountable to the
other stakeholders – who can be given powers to contest
a decision – for actions launched.
How to select stakeholder’s
representatives?
The creation of a dense network of local dialogue
forums should make it possible for actors to participate
directly. However, and this is the case in particular in
large biosphere reserves, it may be necessary to work
through representatives. Furthermore, the representation of an interest group also makes it possible to legiti-
mize, for other stakeholders, the existence of this group
and its opinions. Representatives can speak for their
group to other stakeholders or at different levels of the
dialogue scale. For example, the representative of a local
community can be the spokesman to a public authority
for a group of stakeholders’ opinions, concerns, or complaints. This example raises several questions:
■ Is the spokesman representative of the group? The
group thus represented must be relatively homogeneous, share a common vision and common principles. Dialogue enables the expression of a diversity
of cultures, convictions and feelings, whereas stakeholder representation risks smoothing down this diversity.
■ Is the speaker legitimate within the group he represents? This refers to the spokesman’s internal legitimacy.
■ Is he legitimate for the other categories of stakeholders he is dealing with? This refers to the spokesman’s
external legitimacy.
These three questions should make it possible to verify
the stakeholders’ modes of representation. For example,
sometimes an NGO will speak on behalf of a community.
In this case, it is legitimate to question this representation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, op. cit.).
The question of the size of the biosphere reserve is
still tightly linked to representation problems. Indeed,
the broader the framework of the dialogue, the more
the representatives tend to be disconnected from their
groups. It seems important to integrate local stakeholders into the representative bodies working on a global
level and not to have local communities represented
by stakeholders who are not from the community, even
though they may be more knowledgeable about institutional functioning (Beuret, 2006 b).
Furthermore, the representative must always provide feedback to the stakeholders he represents concerning progress in the debates conducted on a higher level,
in order for the group and its representative to move
ahead in harmony.
Lastly, there are interest groups which are not organized and have no representatives. In this case it is important to see to it that legitimate representatives emerge
from these groups in order to ensure that their opinions
and expectations are heard (Textbox n° 7).
1. Brodhag, C. 2004. Glossaire pour le développement durable. Agora 21
12
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
A diversity of stakeholders
in the advisory committee
of the Menorca Biosphere Reserve
(SPAIN)
T
he advisory committee of the Menorca Biosphere Reserve is a structure which makes
it possible to “survey the interests of the various
stakeholders and fully involve them in planning
and decision-making regarding management and
use of the reserve” (Objective II.1.5 of the Seville
Strategy). It is made up of the main stakeholders
of the land:
■ The local municipal authorities, represented
by the Mayors;
■ Local associations for environmental
protection and conservation of the island’s
cultural heritage;
■ The agricultural sector, represented by
different organizations, such as landowners
and farmers organizations;
■ The tourism sector, represented by hotel
owners associations;
■
■
■
The problem
of the “Absent third party”.
“’Absent third parties’ are key stakeholders who do
not take part in the concertation process, either because
they do not wish to do so, or because they were excluded
by other stakeholders who do not recognize their legitimacy, or because their hierarchical superiors did not give
them leave to do so.” (Beuret 2006a, op. cit.).
Dialogue among the stakeholders makes it possible
to legitimize a decision, the design of a project. If key
stakeholders or persons entitled to certain rights are absent from the process, this may lead to the risk of legitimizing an inequitable situation or the implementation
of an ineffective project in view of the objectives that
have been set (conservation of biodiversity, benefits to
the local population)
One also speaks of “absent third parties” concerning
the representation of future generations, and even nonhuman living beings or the natural environment.
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 6
The real estate construction sector,
including local and foreign investors (although
their participation is limited in discussions
concerning the biosphere reserve)
The political parties represented on the
island;
Civil society intellectuals (scientists).
Textbox n°7
The creation of a representative body of the agro-tourist sector
in the Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve (URUGUAY)
T
he management structure of the Bañados del Este
Biosphere Reserve supported the emergence of a
representative body for the agro-tourism sector, which
did not exist until then. The different stakeholders belonging to this sector were brought together during a
seminar where concerns and proposals were shared.
After several meetings of this kind, the Association of
Agro- and Ecotourism of Rocha (ADEATUR) was cre-
CHAPTER 1 –
ated. Its objectives are representation, communication
and the proposal of combined tourist packages. The
management structure of the biosphere reserve then
reinforced this association through the organization of
training programmes for nature guides and for the recognition of fauna and flora.
This body now legitimately represents this economic sector in various concertation forums.
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
13
How to begin the dialogue?
EXCERPTS FROM THE SEVILLE STRATEGY
OBJECTIVE II.2.4: Establish a local consultative framework
in which the reserve’s economic and social
stakeholders are represented, including the
full range of interests (e.g. agriculture, forestry,
hunting and extracting, water and energy supply,
fisheries, tourism, recreation, research).
Contact with the stakeholders
Explanation and debate
concerning the dialogue process
An important stage preceding the beginning of the
dialogue is the initiation of contact with the different
stakeholders. They must be informed about:
■ The aim of the dialogue process
(e.g. the construction of a common vision
of the land, planning the management of
the biosphere reserve…),
■ The main steps to be followed,
■ The stakeholders involved,
■ The methods used,
■ The duration of the different stages of the process,
■ And any other element likely to foster transparency.
After this stage of contact-making and information (with
respect to form), it is important to gather comments of
different stakeholders concerning the process itself. If the
stakeholders do not agree on “the way of doing things”,
it will be all the more difficult for them to get involved in
this process (Agossou et al, 1999).
Ensuring the participation
of stakeholders
This phase of contact is designed to ensure the stakeholders’ willingness to engage in dialogue. This contact
can be made through interviews with different categories
of stakeholders. These preliminary interviews have three
aims (Barret, 2003):
■ To find out how each party perceives the situation;
■ To guarantee the commitment of the stakeholders
to dialogue;
■ To discuss how the dialogue will be carried out.
14
It often happens that one or more stakeholders refuse to
dialogue, most often due to the presence in the process
of another stakeholder to whom he is strongly opposed
(Agossou et al, op. cit.). This should not block the concertation process. On the other hand, those stakeholders
who have decided to withdraw from the process must be
kept informed of the developments and their reactions
must be taken into account (Barret, op. cit.); their involvement must be encouraged. The idea is to “keep the
door ajar” (Beuret, 2006b, op. cit.).
Furthermore, some stakeholders may have constraints that make it difficult for them to remain involved. It is not always easy to interrupt one’s activity
to attend a meeting or workshop, or to travel a long
distance to get to a meeting. These financial and/or logistical difficulties must be taken into account and the
organization of the dialogue process adapted in consequence (Textbox n° 8).
The invitation,
an essential communication tool
Inviting a stakeholder or announcing a dialogue sequence is an important step, which must not be taken
lightly. The absence of numerous stakeholders at a meeting may sometimes be due simply to lack of communication. There are many ways of communicating about
an event, and the chosen mode must be adapted to the
public that needs to be targeted (invitation letter, e-mail,
posters, signs, oral announcements at the market or during a social event, press, radio, ...). Information must be
easily accessible by stakeholders and the mode of communication must be adapted to the type of information.
Indeed, choosing a form of communication habitually
used by awareness campaigns or non neutral organizations when one wishes to inform about a public consultation or exchange of ideas can create ambiguity (Beuret,
2006b, op. cit.).
The first stage:
a shared diagnosis
The first stage in a dialogue whose aim is the joint
construction of the future of a biosphere reserve is shared
diagnosis. This is a crucial stage: the stakeholders’ mutual understanding and their joint learning process begins
at this point.
■ Learning together. During this stage, participants
learn to know each other better, learn more about
each other’s perceptions and expectations. This exchange process should make it possible for them to
build together a common vision of the present state
of the land (resources, stakeholders), deepen their
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Taking into account the local
socio-cultural context
in the organization of dialogue:
the case of the North Mananara
Biosphere Reserve
(MADAGASCAR)
I
n the North Mananara Biosphere Reserve, the organization of meetings with the local population
is subject to constraints linked to the socio-cultural
context. A meeting can only be held with the approval of the village notables, who have a strong
influence on the population’s mobilization. If they
are not convinced that the subject is worthwhile, it
is likely that turnout will be low. In addition, awareness raising actions must be organized on one of
the three days when work in the rice cultures is forbidden, that is, on fady days.
■
Numerous tools can be used during this phase of shared
diagnosis, either in the context of conference sessions
(participatory cartography, modeling such as Actors Resources Dynamics and Interactions approach (ARDI, see
chapter 4 of this work), or in the field (transects, visits
of farms or companies, ...). The field phases are essential
because they enable stakeholders to learn about concrete
situations, to discuss them in a non-formal situation, and
to find out about the activity of other stakeholders with
whom they are in conflict (Textbox n°9).
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 8
knowledge of the land and identify future issues.
The future of the land must bring the stakeholders
closer together.
The diagnosis, which must answer four essential
questions (Etienne, 2006):
●
What are the resources and what do we know
about these resources to ensure their sustainable
use?
●
Who are the stakeholders who play a role in the
management of the site (direct/indirect) and
what are the interactions among stakeholders?
●
What are the ecological dynamics at play and
how do the stakeholders intervene in these
processes?
●
How does each stakeholder use the resources he
wishes to obtain?
Textbox n° 9
A shared diagnosis in the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve (COLOMBIA)
T
he Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Foundation
(FPSNSM) is an NGO which was founded in 1986,
7 years after the creation of the biosphere reserve, with
a view to finding alternative solutions to the increasing
deterioration of the environment and to improving the
living conditions of the local populations. The Foundation has developed an innovative model for working
with local populations (the Kogui, Wiwa and Arhuaco),
the rural communities, as well as with local and national
authorities and other stakeholders.
In the early 1990s, following the initial recommendations of the scientific committee linked to the foundation, a diagnosis of the Sierra was commissioned. Initially designed as a simple inventory of natural resources, it
CHAPTER 1 –
soon became more important to understand the socioeconomic situation as well as the underlying dynamics
and interactions existing in the present situation of the
Sierra Nevada. The involvement of various stakeholders
in the construction of this diagnosis was also considered crucial. After a long dialogue process with the local
communities and the different stakeholders involved, a
plan for the sustainable development of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta was finalized in 1997. This plan
outlines five main themes of actions: the conservation
of ecosystems and water resources, the strengthening of
the cultural identity of Indian populations, the preservation of rural communities, the reinforcement of basic
rights, and the modernization of public administration.
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
15
Dialogue among stakeholders,
from consultation to concertation
There are different degrees of stakeholder involvement in the management of an area and its natural resources1.
Consultation: the foundation
Consultation is the first level of true population
participation. Consultation alone does not make for the
concerted management of a land where stakeholders
build their future together, but it does represent the basis for dialogue. It is also the form of dialogue most often
used in biosphere reserves. However, beyond this initial
stage of participation it is the whole culture of dialogue
that must be instilled within the biosphere reserve if we
want to ensure that the interests and expectations of all
stakeholders are genuinely accounted for.
Consultation means the gathering – by the management structure or the persons working on a biosphere
reserve project – of the opinions, knowledge, experience
and ideas of the stakeholders. Beuret (2006a, op.cit.) has
identified three types of consultations implemented in
biosphere reserves:
■ Information consultations, which consist simply of
information exchanges,
■ Contributive consultations, which aims at collecting
stakeholders’ opinions and proposals,
■ Interactive consultation, which includes a debate
and is a more sophisticated type of consultation. Interactions between the participants and the organizers of the consultation aim at a partial, collective
construction of proposals.
The quality of a consultation operation depends on several parameters:
■ The clarity of intentions and objectives, as perceived
by those consulted. As in all the different stages
of a concertation process, the aim of the consultation must be clear for all stakeholders. A consultation must not turn into communications operation,
which would make its purpose seem ambiguous to
stakeholders and create confusion;
■ A commitment to taking into account all the ideas
expressed;
■ The issue must be clearly formulated, if the purpose
of the consultation is to respond to a specific problem; otherwise, the participants must be free to define the issues;
1. Bouamrane, M. (ed.). 2006. Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation
itineraries. Biosphere Reserves – Technical Note 1. UNESCO, Paris.
16
■
■
The means: a consultation will be all the more effective if carried out with a small, relatively homogeneous group (in order to facilitate self-expression
among stakeholders who are not used to this form
of participation) and over a sufficiently long period
of time. These three conditions require significant
means;
The level of information of the stakeholders: it is
important to provide clear information to the stakeholders, in a format and language that is adapted to
the aim of the consultation, and to give them enough
time to take stock of this information. Moreover, if
the consultation is part of a process and not an ad
hoc operation, stakeholders will be better informed
and all the more interested.
Taking into account views,
opinions or proposals during a consultation
This is the key point of a consultation. In a consultation phase, there is no formal guarantee that the opinions
collected will be taken into account in the elaboration of
the final decision. However, the management of all the
opinions and comments which emerge from a consultation is essential. There are three stages in this process;
■ Collection of opinions: the comments resulting from
the consultation must be recorded. This can be done
through audio or video recording. One or several
rapporteurs may also write a report. Whatever the
method used, it is important that comments be collected objectively in order to preserve the diversity
of views;
■ The distribution of a consultation report to a wide
public. Stakeholders must have easy access to understandable information. It is important to take
into account the different languages that exist (official and native languages) and adapt the material to
the targeted audience (e.g. oral diffusion by radio or
during information meetings for persons who cannot read);
■ The right to justify: When a decision has been made
after a consultation process, the body that has made
the decision must be able to justify its choices before the stakeholders that were consulted (Textbox
n° 10).
Towards a concertation itinerary
The dialogue process within a biosphere reserve
takes place over a period of time. The aim is to evolve
from ad hoc exchanges to a shared itinerary. The objective is the collective construction of questions, visions,
objectives and common projects, based on a strong and
dynamic dialogue among stakeholders. Time constraints
and the obligation to reach a result determined from the
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
A consultation to identify the priorities
of the local communities
in the Mananara Nord
Biosphere Reserve
(MADAGASCAR)
I
n 1999, roundtables were organized in the 35
fokontany (local management level) of the Mananara Nord Biosphere Reserve, in order to identify
and prioritize the expectations of the local communities. This study shows that education is the priority issue for the populations, followed by themes
linked to agricultural production (food self-sufficiency, diversification of cultures, marketing). In reality, conservation problems were practically absent
from the listed priorities, which demonstrates the
importance of linking conservation and development in the activities of the biosphere reserve. For
example, the reforestation of villages, an issue considered important by the local communities, provides a wood resource (firewood or for construction
purposes) while contributing to the preservation of
natural forests.
Fig. 2 : The collective
construction of a
biosphere reserve, a
process which takes
place over a long
period of time.
Beuret, J-E (2006b,
op. cit.)
The question of time
A culture of dialogue cannot be created within a span
of several days or weeks, but how much time is necessary to set up a “dialoguing environment”?1 The question deserves to be raised. Based on various experiences,
setting up a genuine concertation process in a biosphere
reserve usually takes several years. It is true that dialogue
is incompatible with urgency; but dialogue also makes it
possible to anticipate problems, develop sustainable and
fair solutions. This is why dialogue constitutes the very
foundation of a biosphere reserve (Figure n° 2).
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 10
outset of the dialogue process may hamper the elaboration of an effective and efficient solution. Disagreement
is often preferable to a “false agreement”, especially
when it triggers more dialogue.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
1. Term used by Normand Garriepy, leader of the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere
Reserve (quoted by Beuret, J.-E. 2006 b op. cit.).
CHAPTER 1 –
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
17
Fostering dynamic and
user-friendly exchange formats
The effective participation of the stakeholders in
land management can be ensured thanks to a variety of
user-friendly tools which stimulate participation. The
stakeholders, and mainly those who are not used to this
type of activity are often bored by series of meetings that
repeat a standardized format. Dialogue must be made attractive and creative so that all categories of stakeholders
can be mobilized and express their points of view and
knowledge (Textbox n°11).
Textbox n° 11
Friendly dialogue forums:
the “kitchen table group”
experience in the
South Nova Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA)
I
n order to promote dialogue among the population on the local level, the Southwest Nova Biosphere Reserve decided to set up “focus groups”,
i.e. thematic discussion groups with limited participation. Due to lack of participation, the biosphere
reserve decided to reduce the format to a very
small scale. The groups thus became “kitchen table groups”, informal meetings among neighbours
with no specific theme, agenda or short-term objective. Participants discuss local issues with a view to
improving the quality of life in the community and
on the site.
These initiatives have been very successful in
terms of participation and have made it possible for
the management structure of the biosphere reserve
to learn about and understand local concerns, and
to find out about each person’s ideas. This sort of
dialogue has also made it possible to share knowledge among new and older residents and to break
down certain barriers that may have existed among
stakeholders, for example between scientists and
residents.
Friendliness and proximity with the population has enabled stakeholders to grow significantly
closer.
18
Inter-institutional dialogue:
for the local and
national legitimization of the reserve
The complexity of area management
We may consider that a site and its resources is doubly fragmented due to the presence of a number of institutions. On one hand it is fragmented in space, since the
different institutions manage different fractions of the
site. This is known as “mosaic management” (Beuret,
2006a, op. cit.). On the other hand, it is fragmented due
to a thematic type of management, a “sector management” which “isolates the different problems or resources and causes them to be treated independently of one
another by specialized entities” (Barouch, 1989).
This double fragmentation of space management
causes problems for the integrated and sustainable management of resources: it is therefore absolutely necessary
to organize these institutions in a network that will ensure the coordination of their various competences and
activities regarding the site and its resources.
A biosphere reserve is a geographic area also belonging to other management levels (national, regional). Its
integration into the management policies or plans of
these various administrations is an important asset: it
legitimizes its existence and can be a source of support
(moral, financial, logistical), facilitating the implementation of its objectives. Biosphere reserves are all the more
efficient as management and planning tools if they are
integrated into regional, national or supranational strategies for the sustainable use of resources and biodiversity conservation (Textbox n° 12 and 13).
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The Waterberg Biosphere Reserve:
co-management by stakeholders belonging to different levels (SOUTH AFRICA)
T
he management of the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve is structured in several layers. The Waterberg
Biosphere Reserve Committee (WBRC) is made up of
key stakeholders and is in charge of coordination. It also
defines management objectives and makes the decisions
concerning their enforcement. The biosphere reserve is
covered by several regional economic and spatial plans.
The local transition councils, which are public management agencies on a smaller scale, implement the objectives, for example through the definition of land uses.
The project operators also play an essential role in the
carrying out of the biosphere reserve’s various functions.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 12
��
■ ��
■ ��
■ ��
� ��
Textbox n° 13
A model of bioregional institutional cooperation
in the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
T
he Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve is an
ecosystem of temperate deciduous forest covering
250,000 hectares spread over 6 states. It is considered a
coherent bioregion from an ecological, climatic, geological and cultural point of view. It thus seemed particularly appropriate to apply a model of cooperation among
the different institutions involved, as well as with the
private sector, on a bioregional scale. The structure created in 1988 consists of:
■ the SAMAB cooperative (Southern Appalachian
Man and Biosphere), bringing together the different
states and Federal Agencies (US Fish and Wildlife
Serve, US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service)
concerned.
■ the SAMAB foundation, a non-profit organization,
representing the private sector (companies, NGOs),
as well as regional universities.
CHAPTER 1 –
The task of this bioregional institutional structure is to
improve cooperation among its members as concerns
the planning and management of projects tied to the
use of natural resources, thanks to:
■ a collective learning process for the members;
■ the joint search for solutions to common issues in
the framework of an interdisciplinary structure;
■ the sharing of responsibilities and the coordination
of actions for regional projects.
It also plays a role in the communication of scientific
and technical information to the private sector and the
local population, thanks to contacts with a regional
network of universities.
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
19
The outputs
of dialogue
in the creation
of a biosphere reserve
Bringing stakeholders closer
within the biosphere reserve
This initial phase of dialogue must enable the stakeholders to mutually recognize the legitimacy of each other’s actions on the site. The path covered together should
enable them to know each other better, to understand
each other better, and to facilitate both their activities
and their common actions.
Within the network of stakeholders working together in a collective process involving common visions,
knowledge, objectives, and actions, dialogue makes it
possible to bring together stakeholders thanks to:
■ A wider view of the shared vision of what can be
done.
■ Increased capacity for dialogue and creativity.
■ Better knowledge concerning the ecological, social,
cultural and economic functioning of the site, thanks
to the sharing of knowledge (Textbox n°14).
Towards the elaboration
of management tools
for the biosphere reserve
Elaboration of management plans
The creation of a biosphere reserve implies a zonation as well as a management plan or policy. These
two tools make it possible to elaborate rules of access
and use of the natural spaces and resources in a spatial
framework. If these rules are developed using dialogue,
they will be adapted to the local context and thus help
stakeholders fulfill their needs and expectations. They
will also have greater legitimacy and for this reason
will be more readily obeyed. Dialogue can then make
it possible to reconcile development (cultural, social,
and economic) and the preservation of the environment
(Textbox n° 15 and 16).
The setting up of a management committee
bringing together the different stakeholders
of the biosphere reserve
Numerous biosphere reserves have management
committees bringing together different stakeholders of
the biosphere reserve. The management committee is a
forum for dialogue and an essential instrument for the
coordination of the different actions conducted in the
biosphere reserve. This committee may be responsible
for decision-making as concerns the design and implementation of management plans. Its composition is
strongly linked to the local context.
Stakeholder “contracts”
The “contractual” approach, or charter between the
stakeholders of a biosphere reserve is a very adequate
tool for the management of a biosphere reserve since it is
generated by dialogue and makes it possible to integrate
conservation and development objectives. These contracts may concern a particular sector (forest industry,
tour operators), the users of a natural site (e.g. trekkers’
charter), or can by linked to a geographical area. This
agreement ensures the respect of ecologically sustainable
practices or behaviours while making it possible for the
Textbox n° 14
A dialogue bringing together stakeholders around the principles
of the MAB Programme in the Cévennes Biosphere Reserve (FRANCE)
I
n 1990, in the Galeizon valley, a small watershed
of the Cévennes Biosphere Reserve, a concertation
process, aiming to “promote the MAB concept” in the
area made it possible to elaborate a plan of action for
conservation and development, and to create an intermunicipal structure for implementing this plan, This
dialogue process involved local elected representatives,
valley associations and representatives of the concerned
administrations and bodies and the local population.
20
Ten years later, the construction of a dam was
planned in order to create a leisure area (lake, real-estate project). The population reacted strongly (demonstrations, creation of associations), asserting that the
project did not correspond to the biosphere reserve
project to which they had adhered. This mobilization
revealed the population’s sense of attachment to their
land and underscores the wide-ranging impact of the
participatory approach launched ten years earlier. The
dam project was finally abandoned.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
An integrated development framework based on a participatory process
in the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (SOUTH AFRICA)
T
he public consultation process conducted during
the creation of the biosphere reserve led to the creation of an “integrated development framework” based
on the objectives put forth by the local communities.
For example, this framework includes the following elements:
■ insist on environmental restoration and protection
through sustainability;
■ for the disadvantaged rural communities, an effective reappraisal of their traditional culture, knowledge, and know-how with respect for sustainable
lifestyles;
contracting parties, those adhering to the charter, to give
added value to their product thanks to a label.
In addition, the stakeholders who have adhered to
the same charter represent a new dialogue participant
(Textbox n°17).
Textbox n° 16
The creation of a dialogue forum
on eco-tourism by the management
structure of the
Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA)
T
■
■
■
sustainable outlets thanks to “proximity” tourism
(e.g. local produce, services based on traditional
knowledge and know-how, outlets for arts and
crafts ...);
the creation of jobs and income linked to the rehabilitation and conservation of the environment;
tourism operations jointly organized by the local
communities and biosphere reserve authorities
(e.g. bed and breakfast).
A biosphere reserve can begin to exist once the concept has been appropriated by the different stakeholders
on different levels. The early emergence of a dialogue
involving a large number of stakeholders will facilitate
this learning process. Furthermore, it is important that
this collective learning process be included in an itinerary, and given all the time it needs.
This learning process must make it possible to build
closeness within the network of stakeholders, before
launching together into the construction of a model of
sustainable development and biodiversity conservation,
planning objectives, timetables, and management tools.
Dialogue will then ensure the dynamism and adaptability of the model of sustainable development represented
■■■■
by the biosphere reserve.
Chapter 1
Textbox n° 15
he management structure of the biosphere
reserve (the solidarity cooperative) was created to meet the need for a dialogue forum on
eco-tourism. It brings together the different stakeholders of the area. An eco-tourism development
plan was thus implemented for the Lac Saint-Pierre
Biosphere Reserve thanks to a concertation process
which lasted three years. Dialogue was made possible on the one hand between public service agents,
tour operators (development committees, tourism
bureaus, ...) within the solidarity cooperative, and
with the public, NGOs and elected representatives,
during public meetings, on the other hand.
CHAPTER 1 –
DIALOGUE in the ITINERARY of BIOSPHERE RESERVE CREATION
Matthieu Deldicque
21
Textbox n° 17
The construction of a charter for businesses
in the Mont Ventoux Biosphere Reserve (FRANCE)
D
iscussions on the possibility of setting up a
business charter began in 1995 (the biosphere
reserve was created in 1990). The main objective of
this charter is to give added value to the products and
services provided on the Mont Ventoux site thanks to
the creation of a label for enterprises respectful of the
environment. This charter brought together enterprises
from all sectors: farmers, tour operators, artisans, and
industrialists.
After several meetings and studies conducted with
these enterprises, it turned out that they were not ready
to commit themselves to a new, restrictive system based
on controls and audits. It was therefore decided to include the charter into the existing framework of certifications (Organic Agriculture, ISO 14001, ...).
The collective construction of the charter began in
2007 following this more flexible approach:
■ Individual interviews were conducted with the different economic stakeholders of the biosphere reserve;
22
■
■
■
■
Identification of the “identity clashes” among the
stakeholders during this diagnostic phase: the aim
was to foster the emergence of the biosphere reserve’s identity on the basis of the proximity between the different local identities;
Elaboration of the first draft of the enterprise charter on the basis of this synthesis of stakeholders’
representations and the site’s transversal issues as
brought out by the scientists;
Collective discussion among all stakeholders concerning the draft charter;
Elaboration of specific action plans for each “micro-site” based on the biosphere reserve‘s charter
of enterprises.
In addition to adding value to the products and services
of the biosphere reserve, the draft charter aims to create
a network of economic stakeholders based namely on
the “sharing of competences”.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 2
The biosphere reserve,
a forum for dialogue
23
he biosphere reserve’s management structure can
maintain and improve dialogue within the site in
three important ways, corresponding to three dimensions of dialogue. First of all, it creates a forum for
dialogue. This forum is the context (e.g. the concertation table of forestry industrialists) or the scale (local,
regional) within which the dialogue will take place. The
second important element is the participant in the dialogue. The management structure can have an influence
on stakeholders by training them to dialogue, facilitating the circulation of knowledge within the site and
helping certain categories of stakeholders to become involved. The last dimension of dialogue is the issue to be
discussed by the stakeholders. The management authority can provide material for dialogue that interests the
stakeholders and that meets the objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Last, the
management authority coordinates the dialogue between
the different stakeholders and the different scales.
Optimizing
existing
concertation mechanisms
and creating forums for dialogue
The creation of true concertation systems requires
the setting up of a dense network of dialogue forums.
On the other hand, it is essential to create mechanisms
linking together these different forums and instilling life
into the network.
Fostering dialogue
within existing organizations
Before creating new forums for dialogue, it is important to first verify whether those already in existence
are functional, and if not, to reinforce them. One should
avoid creating new forums unnecessarily, since they
may turn out to be superfluous and may even weaken
the dialogue process. Rather than on numerous concertation forums, dialogue must be based on recognized
discussion spaces which actively participate in a debate
and are creative in terms of proposals. Once again, the
networking of different organizations is a determining
factor.
According to Beuret (2006b, op cit.), institutional
creation in a biosphere reserve must be preceded by:
■ The identification of existing forums for dialogue,
whether formal or informal;
■ The identification of existing coordination mechanisms (spatial planning, impact studies);
■ The assessment of these mechanisms: are they working satisfactorily? Is their functioning linked to the
■
dialogue forums? How can these mechanisms be optimized?
The identification of needs in terms of coordination and dialogue: which mechanisms and forums
should be improved and how can it be done? How
can links be established between these mechanisms
and forums?
Institutional rearrangement
with a view to activating dialogue forums
One way of activating or optimizing institutions
is for example to redistribute territorial competences.
Handing over specific competences to local stakeholders
and enabling them to draw benefits from them can trigger a genuine local impetus and improve dialogue within
the site (Textbox n°18).
Trigger the emergence of dialogue forums
on different scales
The management structure can work towards facilitating the emergence of concertation forums at different
levels:
■ on the local level: the authority can facilitate the creation of dialogue on a very local level by providing
references and tools. A new concertation itinerary
can then emerge (Textbox n° 19).
■ On the level of the biosphere reserve, through the
creation of a concertation table involving stakeholders representing an authority (public or traditional)
on the area (Textbox n° 20).
■ On the level of a sector or resource: a concertation
forum brings together the different representatives
of a single sector or the different managers of a single resource (tourism, forestry, managers of the “water” resources) (Textbox n° 21).
Publicize the advantages and benefits
to be drawn from dialogue
One way of encouraging stakeholders to engage in
dialogue is to share successful concertation experiences
in the biosphere reserve or elsewhere (thanks to exchanges, visits ...). If the stakeholders can see for themselves that dialogue has made it possible to deal successfully with a conflict or to reach an agreement concerning
area and resource management that meets their expectations, they will be more likely to engage in the process.
This has been called the “snowball effect” and is a form
of social learning — vicarious learning1 – or learning by
imitation.
� � � � � � � �
1. Bandura, A. 1995. L’apprentissage social, Ed. Mardaga, Bruxelles.
24
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
From the restriction of uses to participatory management: a change
in forest policy of the Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve (SRI LANKA)
I
n the 1980s, the state forest authorities forbade the
unauthorized gathering of forest products and all
activities other than conservation, research, education
and leisure. At that time, the local communities were
not very willing to cooperate.
In the early 1990s, awareness of the need to obtain
the support of the local population in order to reach
conservation objectives led the government to accept a
more participatory approach to forest management, allowing the local communities to play a more important
role in the management and conservation of the Sinharaja rain forest. In 1993, the management plan for the
conservation of Sinharaja admitted that a total ban on
the use of forest resources was counter-productive for
forest and biodiversity conservation.
In 1995, this change of position was written into a
new forest policy, which states that:
■ the “traditional rights, cultural values and religious
beliefs of the populations living within and around
the forest zones are to be recognized and respected”;
■ even though the natural forest is first and foremost
devoted to conservation, “whenever appropriate,
the state will create partnerships with the local population, rural communities and other stakeholders,
along with appropriate land use arrangements”.
In the framework of a Sinharaja rain forest conservation project (financed by the GEF/UNDP), a model of
participatory management was set up in several pilot
CHAPTER 2 –
zones of the buffer zone of the biosphere reserve. The
aim is to foster opportunities for the local communities to play a significant role in forest conservation and
management.
The creation of community associations, the
“friends of Sinharaja”, has made it possible to strengthen the organizational framework. These new bodies
have enabled the state forest authorities to:
■ establish a dialogue with the local communities
and a climate of trust in which to establish rules;
■ identify the underlying causes of bad practices in
the forest and better know the needs of local population;
■ involve the community in forest conservation measures;
■ identify needs to improve one’s standard of living
in the buffer zones, with a view to lessening bad
practices.
The participatory management of the forest should thus
make it possible to improve the communities’ income,
increase to the productivity of small existing farms, provide logistical and technical support to community activities and a better involvement of the local population
in the decision-making process for forest management.
At the time of the periodic review of the biosphere
reserve in 2003, 90% of the persons interviewed largely
or totally agreed with the fact that local communities
now have their “say” in the management of the forest.
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 18
25
Textbox n° 19
The creation of a local dialogue forum in the
Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve (URUGUAY)
T
he Laguna Rocha is a National Protected Area of
the Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve. In order
to facilitate the management of this protected area,
the management structure of the biosphere reserve
(PROBIDES) supported the creation of a commission
representing the different interests that exist in this geographical area. Although provided for in the 2000 law
on protected areas, the commission emerged before the
enforcement of the application decree. Its aim is to:
■ establish a zoning plan for Laguna de Rocha;
■ elaborate a management plan;
■ integrate the different categories of use of the
protected area.
It is made up of:
The municipality of Rocha,
Civil society, represented by a local group originating in the church, and which aims to support the
poorer populations, in particular fishermen,
■
■
Textbox n° 20
Concertation table of the elected
representatives of the Lac Saint-Pierre
Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
F
ollowing the creation of the Lac Saint-Pierre
Biosphere Reserve in 2000, the advocates of
the biosphere reserve wanted to work with the
elected representatives and encouraged them to set
up a concertation table. This dialogue forum has
now become one of the mainstays of the biosphere
reserve and works closely with the management
structure. The concertation table of elected officials
allows the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve to be
considered a management unit in its own right,
which can therefore coordinate the actions of the
municipalities. In addition, the table represents a
very important intermediary link between the management structure and the national or provincial
public authorities. The concertation table is therefore an essential figure in the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve area of management and dialogue.
26
■
■
■
■
■
■
The fishermen’s association,
Representatives of other users of the site (the
Laguna and the buffer zone),
A group of hotel owners who are conducting a pilot
experience of raising shrimp in the Laguna,
The management structure of the biosphere reserve,
Public administrations: Department of the Environment, Department of Water Resources, Department
of Agriculture.
Agents of the Prefecture,
Today the group is managed by the municipality, after
being under the supervision of the management structure. This local mechanism for dialogue is now established and part of a real concertation itinerary dealing
with the management of Laguna de Rocha.
Facilitating the participation
of stakeholders
Through knowledge sharing
“The ecosystem approach should consider all forms
of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.”
(The Ecosystem Approach, principle 11)
Mobilizing, providing access to and circulating
information
A sine qua non condition for the success of the dialogue process in terms of the sustainable and fair management objectives required of a biosphere reserve is
that all stakeholders have a similar level of access to
information. The fair sharing of information empowers the stakeholders and thus influences the balance
of forces, another necessary condition for a successful
concertation process. The new knowledge thus acquired
should enable stakeholders to “improve their analytical
abilities” concerning complex subjects and provide them
with “new keys to understanding their environment”.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The union of women’s cooperatives
in the Arganeraie Biosphere Reserve
(MOROCCO)
T
he argan tree (Argania spinosa), endemic to
southwestern Morocco, is one of the mainstays of the socioeconomic and cultural system
of the Berber population in the biosphere reserve.
However, serious droughts as well as overdevelopment linked to poverty have threatened this resource, which is essential for the Berber communities (3 million people live on the income from the
argan and its traditional products). The decrease
in the number of argan trees in the biosphere reserve has also had significant consequences on
ground water resources, land erosion and biological
diversity.
Given this state of affairs, sustainable strategies for the development of the argan were set up
in partnership with the local population (with the
support of the GTZ, German Technical Cooperation
for Development). Thus was created the Union
of women’s cooperatives for the production and
marketing of organic argan oil and other agricultural products (UFCA). This union brings together
13 cooperatives and aims to improve the market potential of the products, both on the domestic and
international markets. The products, sold mainly in
Germany and France, bear the label “Products of
the Arganeraie Biosphere Reserve”.
First, it is necessary to mobilize and collect the information. This can be done by consulting different categories of stakeholders, by performing a shared diagnosis of the site, and through additional studies or reports,
conducted either by the local communities, scientists, or
on a participatory basis.
The second step is to provide the concerned stakeholders with access to the collected information. Collecting information raises several questions:
■ To which ecological dynamics and human activities
is the new information linked?
■ What is the purpose of this information from the
perspective of sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity?
■ Which stakeholders should benefit from this information, and who has priority?
CHAPTER 2 –
The answers must make it possible to identify the framework or context in which the information must be
spread, as well as the targeted recipients.
Very often, in a biosphere reserve, any new piece of
information will concern a large number of stakeholders
belonging to different categories. As a result, their ability
to understand the information varies, since they do not
always speak the same language or dialect, are used to
means of communication specific to their cultural context (oral/written), and are not all equally equipped with
information and communication technologies.
In short, the content of the information (level of detail, of vulgarization) must be adapted, as well as its format, so that every concerned stakeholder can grasp and
absorb the information.
The management structure can play an important
role in this process of translation and communication
of information. A broad range of means of communication, both modern and traditional, should be used. The
management structure can also support the creation of
information channels such as community radios, which
provide an access for the local communities to the socalled “mass media”.
Integrating scientific research in the
management of the biosphere reserve
In a biosphere reserve, scientific research must respond to the objectives of conservation, biodiversity and
sustainable economic and human development, from a
sociocultural and ecological viewpoint, and this entails a
maximum of interdisciplinarity between the life sciences
(ecology, genetics, geography,…) and the social sciences
(economics, sociology). We must have a science that is
“committed” to action (Barbault, 2003).
A biosphere reserve is a perfect meeting place for
scientists and all the co-managers of the site.
Science must be confronted with the realities of the
field so as to better take into account the needs of stakeholders and understand the constraints tied to management and political action. Managers in turn must be
open to working with scientists in order to integrate research findings into the process of elaboration of action
and management plans.
“A genuine integration of research as a function in
biosphere reserves” (Cibien, 2006) is necessary, and can
only happen through dialogue. In fact, dialogue between
researchers and managers must make it possible on the
one hand to elaborate a strategy of research in relationship with the site’s project, and on the other hand, to
improve the stakeholders’, and in particular the decision-makers’ capacity for analysis, in view of ensuring
the enlightened and adaptive management of the natural
area and resources.
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 21
27
Dialogue should also be extended to all citizens,
who must be included in the debate on the orientations
of scientific research (Textbox n° 22).
Towards a partnership between researchers
and citizens
In addition to integrating scientific research into
the management framework of the biosphere reserve, it
is essential that the citizens be involved in the work of
the scientists. This meeting point between researchers
and citizens must lead to the exchange of knowledge.
The aim of such an exchange is a joint learning process
and collective construction of a new understanding of
reality.
An example of this partnership is the involvement
of citizens in the collection of scientific data. Citizens
represent a large work force for research. Due to their
number, they can collect in a short time a large quantity
of data on various phenomena: the quality of air, biodiversity, phenology, … In return, scientists share their
knowledge and the findings that stem from this participatory and collective approach to science (Textbox 23
and 24).
Textbox n° 22
Research a “service” to help decision-making
in the Rhön Biosphere Reserve (GERMANY)
T
he administration of the Rhön Biosphere Reserve
considers research a “service” to support decisionmaking processes in environmental management and
policy-making. The biosphere reserve, in turn, considers itself to be a partner for scientists in search of areas
adapted to their scientific research activities. The relationship is therefore based on “supply and demand”,
on a win-win basis. A description of potential projects
linked to the issues that are important in the area under
study have been posted on line (http://www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/) for the purpose of giving the scientific community ideas for potential research topics.
In 1996, the three administrations of the reserve
also drew up a framework plan for scientific research,
28
which lists the different research issues linked to the
land of the biosphere reserve. The “research concept”
calls for interdisciplinary research and project coordination. To this date, students and scientists from thirty
universities, two research institutes and several foreign
universities have conducted projects in the Rhön Biosphere Reserve.
The administrations of the biosphere reserve coordinate and follow up certain research activities, and use
scientific findings, the Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) for example, as a basis for adapting the management of the biosphere reserve.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
“Citizen science”
in the Fontainebleau Biosphere Reserve (FRANCE)
T
he National Museum of Natural History (MNHN,
France) has launched a programme of participatory
monitoring of biodiversity. This programme, entitled
Vigie Nature (Nature Vigie) has been implemented in
the Fontainebleau Biosphere Reserve. It aims to monitor
the evolution of biodiversity thanks to the collection
of data carried out by a network of “observersstakeholders”. This network is made up of amateur
naturalists and general public, depending on the type
of activity. For example, thanks to a network of over
a thousand amateur ornithologists, one programme
consists in the time monitoring of common birds
(STOC programme). In 2006 the “garden butterfly
observatory” was created (with the association Noé
Conservation). This programme invites the public to
participate by identifying and counting the butterflies
in their gardens. Analysis of the data thus collected
should make it possible to monitor the evolutions of
populations and ecological dynamics, in relation, for
example, with climate change or, on a more local level,
in connection with gardening practices. A report on
observations is periodically transmitted to the members
of the network.
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 23
Textbox n° 24
The monitoring of the Long Point Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA) by the local communities
S
ince 1995, the World Biosphere Reserve Foundation of Long Point has engaged in a biodiversity
monitoring programme in regional forests, with a view
to monitoring and analyzing environmental changes
in Norfolk County (Ontario). Volunteers and students
are in charge of coordination and follow-up in the field.
Other regional organizations (public conservation services, environmental NGOs) also participate in this data
collection. The opportunity to integrate these already
existing activities within the biosphere reserve and to
broaden them was the starting point for the development of a monitoring programme conducted by the
local communities.
The project generates data for a periodic report on
the environment of the Long Point Biosphere Reserve.
The management structure is in charge of facilitating
publication of the report, of financing the monitoring,
CHAPTER 2 –
developing partnerships and communicating results.
A workshop that groups together the different regional
partners has also made it possible to raise a number of
questions concerning the implementation of a monitoring project by the local communities.
The first monitoring project, aided by an advisory
committee, focused mainly on the environmental dimension of the biosphere reserve. It is now widening
its scope of study in order to include social, cultural
and economic aspects. The advisory committee is also
establishing contacts with other organizations involved
in environmental monitoring approaches such as the
Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, nature conservation departments or national parks.
The environmental report is a communication tool
which is essential for raising the awareness of the local
communities and encouraging their involvement.
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
29
Through education, awareness
campaigns and training
EXTRACT FROM SEVILLE STRATEGY
OBJECTIVE III.3: Improve education, public awareness
and involvement
5. Encourage involvement of local communities,
school children and other stakeholders
in education and training programmes
and in research and monitoring activities within
biosphere reserves.
Education, awareness campaigns and training
for the environment and sustainable
development
Environmental education should enable the concerned stakeholders to better understand their environment (water, forests, fauna, ...) so that they may learn to
Textbox n° 25
An environmental education diploma
for teachers in the Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve (MEXICO)
F
or the past twenty years, Sierra Gorda has devoted a great deal of effort to environmental
education. These activities are the centerpiece of
the biosphere reserve, created in 1997 (and designated by UNESCO in 2001). Many activities for
sensitizing and educating children on environmental matters have been set up in schools and in the
communities. For example, the creation of “protected school areas”: these are areas reserved for
tree planting by the schoolchildren, who will also
monitor these “children’s forests” during their time
in school.
In 2006, the Earth Center, an environmental
training and education centre was created. Among
the numerous activities proposed by this centre, a
training programme for elementary schoolteachers
was set up in order to provide them with educational
tools for environmental education. Once they
have completed this training programme, trainees
receive a “diploma in community environmental
education”.
30
value and respect it. These awareness campaigns aim to
preserve biological diversity and natural resources.
Education for sustainable development establishes
links between this environment and human activity. The
aim is to explain how our lifestyles (production, consumption) are in direct relation with nature on one hand,
and with the cultural and social values of our societies
on the other. The aim is to promote behaviour that fosters the sustainable use of land and natural resources.
One pedagogical method in the aim of sustainable
development is to study together the behaviours and personal lifestyles of stakeholders in order to assess whether
they are sustainable from an environmental (e.g. the ecological footprint), economic, social and cultural point of
view. Once stakeholders have gained awareness of these
issues, they should be shown how they can modify their
behaviour so as to be in compliance with the aims of
sustainable development.
Stakeholders who have become aware of these issues
are more likely to engage in dialogue on environmental
issues; they are able and willing to spread the information they have acquired. A child who has learned about
the value of the water resource will transmit this message to his parents.
Education and awareness of environmental and sustainable development issues concern all the stakeholders
of a biosphere reserve, in particular the political officials,
often neglected by these activities even though it is they
who have the power to promote strong environmental
policies (Textbox n° 25 and 26).
Dialogue training
The creation of a dialogue-based system requires
significant human resources in terms of leadership, mediation or translation (Textbox n° 27). These different
functions are performed by what we will call a “facilitator”, even though these functions may be performed at
different stages in the process and by different people. A
facilitator needs many skills: some may be learned during a training programme or through experience, while
others are more tied to a given personality.
The following table draws a non exhaustive list of
the facilitator’s skills (they are not all indispensable of
course).
1. This is a major concern for UNESCO which is the leading UN agency
for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(2005-2014)
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Identification of the target stakeholders of awareness campaigns
in the Mananara Nord Biosphere Reserve (MADAGASCAR)
T
he North Mananara Biosphere Reserve has worked
on the identification of target stakeholders for environmental awareness campaigns and actions to be
implemented, according to the category of stakeholder.
Target stakeholders
The following table presents the different target stakeholders selected for environmental education actions,
with the educational objectives linked to each category
of stakeholder:
Environmental education objectives
Villagers . . . . It is a “way of securing the conservation of forest resources”.
School children . . . . They represent “the future of the area” and will further,
“in the future, the predominant ideas for the region”.
School teachers and parents . . . . They must “become aware so as to be able to communicate
with the children”.
Project officers in the biosphere reserve . . . . “(…) as bearers of conservationist ideas among the population,
they must receive basic training.
Tourists . . . . The idea is to “recall the rules to be followed and provide
logistical information (…)”
Textbox n° 27
The training of forest wardens
in community participation
techniques in the
Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve
(SRI LANKA)
I
n the framework of the Sinharaja rain forest conservation project (funded by the UNPD/GEF),
the project agents and the agents of the state authorities were trained in community participation
techniques. The following training programmes
were offered:
■ Biodiversity conservation and participatory
management;
■ Social mobilization, leadership and
community development;
■ Forest management and social mobilization;
■ Tools and techniques for Participatory Rural
Appraisal;
■ Communication techniques, tools
and principles.
CHAPTER 2 –
This list can help in the process of recruiting and
training facilitators (Cf. Beuret, 2006a, op. cit.):
■ Ability to create a climate of cooperation in which
the stakeholders feel secure:
●
Openness and impartiality
●
Ability to perceive the other’s sensitive spots
●
Be credible
■ Ability to listen actively:
●
Stimulate expression and production of
information
●
Stimulate mutual listening
●
Ability to reformulate and keep the exchange
focused
●
Knowledge of the methods and instruments,
tools of dialogue
■ Ability to understand and analyze information:
●
Knowledge of the subject
●
Openness to the “language” of the others
●
Ability to analyze information in the light of
the context
●
Ability to synthesize
■ Ability to conduct group discussions;
■ Ability to stimulate the group and its creativity
(energetic attitude);
■ Availability, personal commitment and patience.
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 26
31
The link between
conservation and development
as a basis for dialogue and
cooperation
EXCERPT OF THE SEVILLE STRATEGY
OBJECTIVE II.1: Secure the support and involvement
of local people
7. Evaluate the natural products and services of
the reserve, and use these evaluations to promote
environmentally sound and economically
sustainable income opportunities for local people.
8. Develop incentives for the conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources, and
develop alternative means of livelihood for local
populations (…).
9. Ensure that the benefits derived from the
use of natural resources are equitably shared
with the stakeholders (…)
Textbox n° 28
The link between conservation
and development
in the Xishuangbanna
Biosphere Reserve (CHINA)
F
rom 1993 to 2003, the biosphere reserve supported the installation in villages of 1,200 wood
furnaces with increased efficiency, the improvement
of 1,500 wood furnaces and the installation of 50
biogas furnaces (gas produced through the decay
of natural waste). Thanks to this effort, firewood
gathering has considerably decreased. On the one
hand this represents a significant labor savings for
the local communities and on the other hand an
action in favor of the conservation of the forest and
its biodiversity.
Other practices in biosphere reserves
(Annex 2): the search for “mixed” technologies
for forestry in the Manicouagan-Uapishka
Biosphere Reserve (Canada)
32
Fostering dialogue through sustainable
development principles and bases for
compromise
The management structure may for example propose the creation of a label which gives added value and
recognition to a product or service, thanks to a process
of submitting attribution of the label to certain practices
(charter, code of good behaviour, ...) which respect the
environment, the rights of the local population (e.g. “fair
trade”), or other associated cultural values.
These eco-labels can be linked to a specific sector of
activity; for example, this is the case for tourism, where
it is necessary to develop the practice of “green”, “fair”
or “solidary” tourism; or also the case of the Good Practices charters in the forestry industry.
These eco-labels can also be linked to the fact of belonging to the biosphere reserve. In this case the “Biosphere Reserve Charter” can differ according to the
various sectors of activity. This labeling process encourages stakeholders to commit themselves to sustainable
development by adding value to their activity while at
the same time promoting the biosphere reserve thanks
to labeled products and services.
For this reason, it is important to ensure that the
stakeholders discuss and negotiate the contents of the
charter or good behaviour code linked to the label. If
the rules are unclear or not respected, the action loses
all credibility.
Similarly, the fair sharing of the income resulting
from the biosphere reserve’s activities is an essential focus of dialogue, one in which the local and native populations show great interest.
Overall, establishing dialogue on subjects that combine the objectives of both conservation and development should lead to a better involvement of stakeholders and ensure that appropriate actions are carried out
(Textbox n° 28 and 29).
The active cooperation
of stakeholders in the management
of the biosphere reserve
This represents an additional stage in the partnership
between the biosphere reserve’s management committee
and the local stakeholders. The active cooperation of
local stakeholders involves participation in biodiversity
conservation actions in exchange for benefits which can
be financial, or tied to improved access to natural areas
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Conservation for the benefit of the local populations
in Sierre Gorda Biosphere Reserve (MEXICO)
“
If habitat is valued, everyone will make an effort
to preserve it.”1 97% of the biosphere reserve belongs to small landowners. For this reason, the sustainable use of resources and biodiversity conservation can
only happen through awareness and responsibility on
the part of the local population. The latter can only take
on responsibility if they draw some advantage from the
actions that are carried out. There are three types of advantages:
■ services directly rendered by the ecosystem to the
inhabitants (natural resources, landscape,…)
■ benefits tied to the services rendered by the ecosystem. For example, a preserved environment makes
it possible to develop ecotourism. Sierra Gorda Ecotours is a company linked to the association Grupo
Ecologica Sierra Gorda and offers ecotourism excursions accompanied by guides who belong to the
local population.
■ the remuneration of services rendered by the inhabitants to the ecosystem. In order to curb deforestation, which has significant consequences on
water resources and soil erosion, a programme was
launched in 2003 to remunerate (thanks to funds
from the Government Forest Commission) the landowners who participate in actions to limit pasturing
and deforestation, thus ensuring the viability and
quality of watersheds. This programme makes it
possible to protect mountain forest environments,
reduce the risk of flooding, and provide adequate
water supply to the cities located downstream. In
order to ensure the stability of this income, which
strongly depends on the political situation, studies
have been carried out (with the support of the University of Queretaro) to assess the financial benefits
brought by water management in the biosphere reserve to the companies located downstream (hydroelectricity, mining and forest development). The
aim is to convince enterprises to invest in the conservation of the biosphere reserve. In addition, an
agreement remunerating the biosphere reserve for
the sequestration of 5,500 tons of carbon has been
signed with the United Nations Foundation.
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 29
1. Martha Ruiz Corzo (Director of the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve and
founder of the Grupo Ecologica Sierra Gorda).
and resources (attribution of property rights, user or access rights) or to the respect for cultural values.
This cooperation must lead to mutual benefit. On the
one hand, the involvement of local populations should
improve the effectiveness of biodiversity protection or
monitoring actions; on the other, the contract must aim
to improve the living conditions of the local populations
(Textbox n° 30 and 31).
CHAPTER 2 –
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
33
Textbox n° 30
The “protecting families” of the forest in the
Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve (VIETNAM)
I
n 1990, the Vietnamese government proposed that
new residents come to live in the forest in exchange
for a plot of land, a settlement grant (for building a
house, buying a boat,…), monthly subsidies and additional income opportunities linked to activities governed by resource use rules. The families willing to settle
pledged to protect, manage and use the forest according
to rules determined by a forest environment management committee (the future management structure of
the biosphere reserve). Ten “protecting families” settled in the forest in 1990. One year later, 157 of the 400
families living in the forest or in surrounding areas also
became “protecting families”. The integration of these
families into the monitoring and management system
of the forest made it possible to reduce the illegal activities linked to the use of resources and thus conserve
biodiversity while providing the families with alternative
sources of income. This system also made it possible to
engage in dialogue with poachers, which the forest wardens had been unable to do. “Problems must be solved
through dialogue. We bring [the poachers] home and
we talk. We can talk to them whereas with the wardens,
there was no discussion” (according to “protecting family” member).
Textbox n° 31
From building the organizational capacities of the populations to the
community-based management of natural resources in the
Mananara-Nord Biosphere Reserve (MADAGASCAR)
T
he results of phase I (1989-1992) of the management of the North Mananara Biosphere Reserve
(MNRB) showed the necessity of increasing the involvement of the local population in the biosphere’s activities; indeed, programme officials felt that the only way
to ensure the conservation function of the MNRB was
through community management of resources. Considerable effort has thus gone into building up the organizational capacities of local communities:
■ village community storage rooms, collective rice
storage facilities, to offset seasonal price variations;
■ the Savings and Credit mutual funds (MEC), created
to ensure self-development and the sustainability
of community storage facilities. The MECs, which
had about 100 members in 1999, one year after the
34
project was launched, had reached a membership of
nearly 500 by 2001.
In the framework of the community capacity-building
project and in compliance with the 1996 law on the
Contract-based Management of Forests, a transfer of
competences was performed in order to transfer the
management of the forest resources to the community.
The local communities are organized in forest management committees, and are in charge of managing user
rights, commercializing forest products and the conservation of the resource. The transfer of competences is
based on a contract between the state, which owns the
land, and the community; specific guidelines are given
and the limits of the area to be managed are precisely
determined.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Management structure of the
Manicouagan-Uapishka Biosphere
Reserve (CANADA):
a network knot
H
aving established ties with the stakeholders,
the biosphere reserve now represents a node
in the network of stakeholders, a bridge between
the private sector and the environmental sector,
thus reinforcing the unity of the concertation system. For example, the Ministry of the Environment
contacts the structure in order to raise a specific
question addressed to an enterprise.
Textbox n° 33
Management structure of the
Long Point Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA): an association
open to all
D
uring the first public meetings after the designation of the biosphere reserve in 1986,
which aimed to explain the biosphere reserve concept and its application in the case of Long Point,
the local communities clearly expressed their wish
to participate. From 1985 to 1990, several attempts
were made to plan an organization of the biosphere
reserve which would include the various interests
of the actors present on the site. The format developed in 1989 was that of a nonprofit association
open to all persons wishing to become members,
with an executive committee made up of 15 members elected for a term of three years and renewed
by a third every year. The members of the executive
committee come from various backgrounds: business owners, farmers, forest wardens, biologists,
engineers, teachers, writers.
They participate in their own name and not
as representatives of their sector of activity. Today,
over 50 persons belonging to the local population
have sat on the committee. One of the main roles
of the association, which has been recognized as
such, is to promote dialogue and cooperation within horizontal networks.
CHAPTER 2 –
Coordinating dialogue
within the biosphere reserve
Visibility of the management structure
Sometimes the local population is unaware of the
existence of the biosphere reserve as are many visitors.
It is important to communicate with the public at large
on the subject of the reserve, its objectives and activities. Communication can take place by distributing
brochures in public and neutral places (public libraries,
markets, tourist information bureaus, ...), posting information signs in the biosphere reserve.
Coordinating the network
The coordination and organization of dialogue forums is a key factor of success in the participation processes and requires the implementation of a genuine “infrastructure of participation” (Bishop, 2005).
We can imagine territorial dialogue as a net in which
the knots represent concertation areas. In order for the
entire net to be functional, the strings connecting the
knots, which represent dialogue itineraries, must be interconnected and organized. The role of the management
or coordination structure is to supervise the functioning
of the network. For instance, it can create a hub of networks to ensure the coordination of different stakeholders, or of different levels, and it can fill the gaps of the
dialogue system.
The BIOSPHERE RESERVE, a FORUM for DIALOGUE
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 2
Textbox n° 32
35
Two approaches can be used to coordinate the network, generally in combination:
■ a management (or coordination) committee representing the stakeholders of the area as a focal point
of dialogue (figure 3.A)
■ the participation of management committee members in the different concertation forums in the area
(figure 3.B)
A biosphere reserve is a space in which living dialogue, expressing various emotions, interests and expectations must make it possible to build a model of
sustainable area and resource management. In order to
ensure that this dialogue is effective and efficient, the
management structure can support the exchange of
values and knowledge by enhancing the infrastructure
within which the dialogue occurs, by facilitating the circulation of information, reinforcing the capacity of stakeholders to participate in decision-making and management processes and offering opportunities for exchange
and action which are common to all the stakeholders.
Finally, the management structure of a biosphere reserve,
representing a sort of passageway between the different
stakeholders active in the area (scientists, local communities, public institutions, …) must coordinate the joint
actions in order to ensure the effectiveness of the concerted management of the biosphere reserve.
■■■■
Figure 3: Two diagrams showing the coordination
of concertation forums in the biosphere reserve
��
��
��
A:
36
the management/coordination
structure as focal point
��
��
B:
the management/coordination
structure integrated into the different
concertation forums
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 3
Dialogue
in conflict analysis
and management
37
Conflicts due to relative compatibility, if one activity changes the conditions under which another activity is performed.
Conflicts tied to different positions concerning management objectives:
●
Tied to a real situation, when stakeholders have
really opposite opinions concerning the management of the area and of natural resources.
For example, certain animals are considered
by some an endangered species and by others a
meal or potential trophy.
●
Tied to an anticipated situation, when a stakeholder anticipates the position of another stakeholder. Conflicts by anticipation reveal a lack
of information and dialogue in the biosphere
reserve and can be resolved by building the mutual trust of stakeholders. These conflicts occur
in particular when the biosphere reserve is being
created, since fears are expressed concerning the
application of constraining rules regarding the
access to and use of resources.
Conflicts tied to methodology, or how the different
groups of stakeholders manage a situation, a problem. This can be the case during management processes which include both legislation and customary
rules, or when diplomatic solutions are in opposition with using force and legislative means with civil
disobedience.
Structural conflicts, linked to the biosphere reserve’s
structure, on different levels:
●
On the social level when the social organization
of the biosphere reserve is not representative or
is unfair — either in reality or perceived as such
by some stakeholders— (educational system,
ability to negotiate, weight carried in the decision-making, …);
●
On the legal level, if the system favours certain
stakeholders (recognition, equality before the
law,…);
●
On the economic level, for example when the
environmental dimension is not integrated into
economic policies or due to the domination of
certain powerful enterprises in the local economy;
●
On the cultural level, due to the presence of different value systems which do not understand
or accept each other.
●
EXTRACT FROM SEVILLE STRATEGY
OBJECTIVE IV.1.5: Prepare guidance on management issues
at biosphere reserve sites, including, inter alia,
alia,
methods to ensure local participation, case studies
of various management options, and techniques
of conflict resolution.
he existence of dialogue among stakeholders should
make it possible to anticipate the emergence of conflicts and thus set up preventive conflict management on the basis of what we identified earlier (mutual
recognition, understanding of the other, …). However,
a biosphere reserve is a changing space: transformations
in environmental dynamics linked to external factors
such as global warming, to changes in the positions
of stakeholders or the emergence of new stakeholders,
to changes in the legal framework on resource use, all
these elements are sources of change and potential conflict. How should a conflict be understood, how does
one identify the different participants and objects, and
how can this conflict be managed through concertation?
This chapter will provide a few pointers concerning
these various questions.
Conflict analysis
in biosphere reserves
The analysis of conflicts is an essential stage of the
management process, which aims at reaching agreement.
The different types of conflict
We can identify four large categories of conflict
(based on the typology of Pendzich, quoted by Jones,
P.S. et al., 2005)
■ Conflicts of interest linked to competing or incompatible uses of identical resources or linked to divergent positions. There are several types of conflicts
linked to the multifunctional nature of spaces and
natural resources (Pennanguer, quoted by Beuret,
2006c):
●
Conflicts due to the absolutely incompatible
nature of two activities which are mutually exclusive, the development of one leading to the
disappearance of the other.
●
Conflicts due to conditional compatibility, when
two activities are compatible only under certain
conditions.
■
■
■
� � � � � � � �
38
These different types of conflict can coexist within a biosphere reserve.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
How should conflicts be analysed
and understood?
Identifying the roots of the conflict
Conflict analysis consists in identifying and bringing
out the deeper roots of conflict, its primary sources.
The first thing is to identify the visible source of the
conflict, and then break it down into several elements
which in turn can be broken down into separate elements. The conflict can thus be represented as a “problem tree”, where the roots represent the causes of the
conflict, and the branches are the consequences. The
construction of this tree should be done collectively, so
that no causes of conflict are forgotten. In this way stakeholders recognize the complexity of the situation. This
phase is essential, in as much as the sustainable management of an environment-linked conflict requires working on the roots of the problem and not just correcting
the consequences.
The analysis of stakeholder representations based
on “order of magnitude”
It is absolutely necessary to understand the interests, fears and need of stakeholders in the analysis of a
conflict. The positions of the different stakeholders generally reflect their personal value system. Boltanski and
Thévenot (quoted in Beuret, 2006a) op. cit.) speak of
“orders of magnitude”, meaning the system of references
CHAPTER 3 –
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Figure 4: Synthetic organizational chart
of the different types of conflict which
can arise in a biosphere reserve (based on
Pendzich and quoted by Jones, P.S. et al.,
2005 op. cit. and Beuret, 2006a) op. cit.)
governing a stakeholder’s position and his justifications.
Identifying these “orders of magnitude” can facilitate the
understanding of stakeholders’ rationales. There are six
orders of magnitude, or six ways of perceiving reality on
the basis of the importance attributed to a given issue;
■ the domestic rationale, when attention is focused on
familiar issues such as persons, places, tradition;
■ the civic rationale, when attention is focused on the
general interest, on fairness;
■ the industrial rationale, when attention is focused
on efficiency, performance, on the functional aspect
of beings and things;
■ the commercial rationale, when attention is focused
on the commercial value of space and its natural resources;
■ the inspired rationale, when priority is given to the
esthetic, singular aspects of a natural area or transformed by man, or of cultural practices;
■ the renown rationale, when a person’s or an organization’s renown, or that of a method, is what makes
him/it trustworthy.
The stakeholders of a biosphere reserve thus rely on these
orders of magnitude to justify a position as well as criticize the representations of other stakeholders. This reading of the stakeholders’ behaviour can help improve the
situation. For example, it can help distinguish between a
justified complaint and a “strategic” standpoint.
DIALOGUE in CONFLICT ANALYSIS and MANAGEMENT
Matthieu Deldicque
��
Chapter 3
��
39
Concentrating on the reality of the conflict
Regardless of the nature of the conflict, it is important
to focus on the reality of the local context. Two different
conflicts can mobilize the same resources or ecosystems
(e.g. a coastal zone), or similar categories of stakeholders
(e.g. fishermen, tourists, ecologists) and stem from very
different origins, linked to the local context. For example, an interpersonal conflict can be covered by a conflict
linked to the use of resources; a conflict pertaining to resource access may explain a conflict which at first glance
seems cultural. If the conflict is not accurately analysed,
its management can fail (Textbox n°34).
How can research help
conflict management?
Scientific research in a biosphere reserve can help
the analysis and management of conflicts by bringing
in new information. This information can support dialogue with a view to building solutions collectively. The
knowledge brought by science can concern the access
and use of resources and biodiversity (understanding of
behaviour, customary rules, ..), as well as stakeholder
perceptions, that is, local knowledge or technical innovations. The understanding of social dynamics, in other
words the behaviour of different groups of stakeholders
and their interactions is an essential aspect of conflict
management (Textbox n°35).
Dialogue
in conflict
management
Clarifying latent conflicts
The first stage in the management of a conflict is
the recognition of its existence by the stakeholders. If
a stakeholder refuses to admit that there is a conflict, it
will be difficult to engage in a management process.
In addition, so-called “latent” conflicts (Beuret
2006a) op. cit.) are sometimes expressed through
blocked situations and pressure exerted by some stakeholders on others.
It is thus essential to clarify the conflict through dialogue. Thanks to this clarification, not only can the problem be discussed, but the underlying social demands of
stakeholders can be expressed.
How to start an itinerary
to manage a conflict?
It is often difficult to bring the different parties of
a conflict together around a table and thus launch the
dialogue, thanks to a simple invitation. Before the parties can agree to start out on a concertation itinerary, it
is often necessary to establish a preliminary agreement
Textbox n° 34
Defining the level of conflict in the
Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve (URUGUAY)
I
n the Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve, the following table was used to
define the level of importance of the conflicts:
Pressure exerted by
a sector of activity
on the environment
High
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
Vulnerability of the environment
which is under pressure
This initial description of the conflicts between conservation and development must be completed by an analysis of the reality of the context,
the social dynamics at hand, the different stakeholders involved and their
interests.
40
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The contribution of scientific research to customary practice and to interactions
between man and nature in the analysis and management
of conflicts in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (INDIA)
R
esearch conducted in the Nanda Devi Biosphere
Reserve has produced insights leading to a better
understanding of conflicts and input for their management.
Research objectives:
■ learn about the socio-economic and cultural status
of the villagers and identify the reasons for accepting (or not) ecologically sustainable alternatives;
■ quantify the dependence and pressure exerted by
villagers on the natural resources of the buffer zone
and the adjacent forests;
■ suggest strategies for the sustainable use of the
natural resources of the buffer zone.
■
Approach:
socio-economic analysis (reconnaissance of the
area, interviews with local leaders, questionnaire
Textbox n° 36
The preliminary agreement,
first stage in the management
of a conflict between sport fishing
and commercial fishing in the
Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA)
T
he decrease in the yellow perch population, a species of fish emblematic of the Lac
Saint-Pierre has led to a conflict between sport and
commercial fishermen. A work group representing
the different parties in conflict was set up on the
initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (which supports commercial fishing) and the
Ministry of Fauna (which supports sport fishing).
The first stage meant meeting together to reach a
preliminary agreement setting terms and rules of
dialogue. The work group thus agreed that the decision must be based on scientific studies, and that
extreme solutions, meaning the prohibition of one
or the other activity, are excluded. Through this
preliminary agreement, the parties mark their commitment to the dialogue process.
CHAPTER 3 –
■
■
on demography, land use, resource use among all
the families, participatory observation);
analysis of the dependence of man on resources in
three villages corresponding to different ecological
levels (analysis of firewood consumption, wood
transfers, animal transfers, at the entrance and exit
of the village, during a year);
analysis of the pressure exerted on the natural
milieu, along a transect starting from the village
centre.
These studies made it possible to study the impact of
human action on biodiversity, the rationale of villagers’
actions and behaviour, as well as perceptions concerning the proposed alternatives.
concerning the framework of the dialogue. This framework can involve:
■ the process itself: how the stakeholders are represented, rules of dialogue, what kind of knowledge
can be tapped (scientific, local, …), which stakeholders will be playing a role during the process
(scientific experts, associations, …)
■ the object of the dialogue, what will be or will not
be talked about. The aim is to bring together the
stakeholders to negotiate what they deem can be
negotiated. The different parties of the conflict will
thus have to make concessions in order to be able to
reach this preliminary agreement.
This preliminary agreement represents, as it were, a guarantee needed by each party in order to be able to engage
in dialogue. The parties can then commit themselves to
the dialogue process. This commitment (oral or written)
makes it more difficult for a party to withdraw from the
dialogue and sets the foundations for the concertation
process (Textbox n° 36).
DIALOGUE in CONFLICT ANALYSIS and MANAGEMENT
Matthieu Deldicque
Chapter 3
Textbox n° 35
41
Conflict management: an itinerary
As in the collective construction of the management
policy or management plan of a biosphere reserve, the
management of a conflict takes time and must follow a
concertation itinerary. The management structure of the
biosphere reserve can be both a facilitator and a coordinator of the concertation process. The following
textbox describes conflict management itineraries
(Beuret 2006b) op. cit.) (Textbox n° 37).
Textbox n° 37
A conflict management itinerary concerning the land tenure system of the
core area of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (GUATEMALA)
A conflict concerning the land tenure system in the south of Yaxha National Park,
core area of the biosphere reserve
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ■��
� ��
■��
� ��
��
��
��
��
■��
� ��
� ��
■��
Organizing the concertation forum
Following the wishes of the peasant communities,
the “deputy mayors” appointed by the local municipalities for the two communities that have settled illegally
asked CONAP, the biosphere reserve’s management
structure, to launch a spatial planning and organization
process. After two very heated meetings between CONAP and the peasant communities first, then with the
landowners, it was decided that a committee would be
created, bringing together:
■
■
■
■
■
five representatives of each of the peasant communities;
seven representatives of the landowners (they all
belong to the same family);
representatives of CONAP (the regional director of
CONAP will lead the process);
CONTIERRA, a public organization specializing in
mediation in land tenure conflicts;
the governor and his representative.
De nouveaux paysans sans
terre , qui tentent de s’installer
Acteurs réunis dans un espace de concertation
Des traficants de drogue
, qui
cherchent à implanter leur activité Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
42
Deux communautés de
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Objet du conflit
paysans sans terre
,
> qui occupent et cultivent les
Peasant communities
The peasant communities are supported by
an assessor, a lawyer chosen by a religious
organization who participates in supporting
development, the Apostolic Vicariate of Peten.
Landowners
The speaker is the head of the family of the
landowners.
An intra-category negotiation aiming to define the range of
possibilities and the best strategy
Peasant communities
Can one demand property rights
indiscriminately, on private land or on
expropriated land considered state property?
Can some families be moved onto other land?
Chapter 3
Organization of the parties in conflict
Landowners
Should they maintain an extreme position, that
is, demand property rights on all land, including
expropriated land, or should they adopt a more
flexible position?
A preliminary agreement consolidates the committee and opens up
management perspectives
Concessions from each party make it possible to
reach a preliminary agreement:
■ a priori commitment of the peasant communities to
move if they are given land elsewhere;
■ a priori commitment of landowners to give up land
which has been expropriated and lose 10% of their
land if their rights are officially recognized;
■ the management structure suggested the possibility
of granting each party a standard area free of property rights.
CHAPTER 3 –
The preliminary agreement represents an important
threshold in the conflict management process. Thanks
to the agreement, the following has become irreversible:
■ a situation due to the concessions made by each
party (which may be unequal):
■ a network of stakeholders thanks to the commitment of each party in the process.
This itinerary of conflict management is still ongoing
today, with a precise evaluation of the situation of land
tenure (measurement of plots, existing crops,…)
DIALOGUE in CONFLICT ANALYSIS and MANAGEMENT
Matthieu Deldicque
43
Giving impetus to
a conflict management itinerary
Several approaches are used in territorial mediation
to unblock delicate dialogue situations or help the concertation itinerary move forward towards building an
agreement (See Barret, 2003 op. cit. and Beuret, 2006
op. cit.).
■ a reference to common values: the aim is to focus
the dialogue on what the parties have in common,
beyond their differences. It can be the feeling of belonging to the same community, group of stakeholders, the same land, or yet again a common vision
of the future, general objectives of the biosphere reserve such as sustainable development and biodiversity conservation.
■ an invitation to use one’s imagination: the aim is to
encourage participants to express their aspirations,
their expectations for the future of the biosphere reserve, over and beyond the specific constraints tied
to the local context. The possibility of “stepping
aside” for a moment can be very beneficial to the
dialogue process.
■ the worst case scenario: by explaining the possible
consequences of stopping the dialogue effort and
returning to a status quo. However, stakeholders
Textbox n° 38
Stimulating voluntary agreement
by revealing existing dangers during
a conflict in the Lac Saint-Pierre
Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
T
he conflict concerned the deterioration of the
banks of the Saint-Lawrence river, linked to
the excessive speed of the ships. The representative
of the biosphere reserve explained that the image of
the maritime transport firms is likely to suffer from
the ongoing deterioration. From the start, this argument, as well as the threat of stringent legislation
encouraged dialogue. Later, during the meetings,
the representative of the biosphere reserve listed
various alternatives, among which: financial compensation for environmental damages, restoration
of the river banks, and measures to reduce speed in
order to prevent erosion. The Saint-Lawrence Ship
Operators Association thus chose the last, least expensive, solution. This approach thus made it possible to construct a voluntary agreement.
44
■
■
■
must not feel threatened and forced to reach an
agreement in a climate of urgency, but rather must
be given a sense of their responsibility along with
a reminder of the opportunities and advantages
brought to them through the co-construction of an
agreement (Textbox n° 38).
Inspiration through example: by using the example
of a similar conflict management situation in the
same biosphere reserve or in another belonging to
the World Network.
Going beyond the representatives: representatives
sometimes hold onto a more rigid position than the
stakeholders they represent, because they feel they
have to defend the latter’s interests. In some cases it
may be productive to sidestep the representatives in
order to unblock a situation.
Protecting dialogue against external pressure: the
participants must be protected against the pressure
exerted by some stakeholders of the biosphere reserve who are opposed to the targeted agreement.
This pressure occurs more frequently at the time of
the final phase of the conflict management process,
during the drawing up of the final agreement. The
risk is that some stakeholders may finally withdraw
from the dialogue and the construction of the agreement, thus depriving the latter of any legitimacy.
The multiplicity of issues at stake in biosphere reserves
can lead to conflicts among stakeholders. The sustainable management of these conflicts, linked to the existence of conflicting interests, uses and values, requires a
deep understanding of the causes and dynamics underlying these conflicts. Taking into account the different
stakeholders in the analysis of conflicts should make it
possible to establish the conditions necessary for their
successful management.
Furthermore, dialogue makes it possible to find together a viable solution, supported by all.
■■■■
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 4
The Periodic Review:
a key moment
in the dialogue process
45
4.1 –
A Self-evaluation
ARTICLE 9- PERIODIC REVIEW
1. The status of each biosphere reserve should be
subject to a periodic review every ten years,
based on a report prepared by the concerned
authority, on the basis of the criteria of Article 4,
and forwarded to the secretariat by the State
concerned.
UNESCO 1996. THE SEVILLE STRATEGY
AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.
he first biosphere reserves designated in 1976 were
mainly dedicated to research and conservation objectives. However, beginning in 1985 and 1986, due
to changes in needs and practices in the field, the focus
shifted to the three main functions of biosphere reserves
(conservation, sustainable development and logistic
support). At that time, concerns were voiced about what
was possible, authorized, or not in a biosphere reserve.
An international working group was set up, leading to
the drafting of article 3 on the functions of biosphere
reserves and article 4 on criteria. The drafting of these
articles required a great deal of negotiation and compromise, with a view to ensuring the flexibility of the
concept’s application. At the time, one hundred or so
biosphere reserves did not meet function and criteria requirements, which meant they had to be upgraded. One
of the principles of the periodic review is that there is no
external evaluation; this is why article 9 specifies that
the review is based on a report. The advantage of this
approach is that the concerned authorities are urged to
show an interest in biosphere reserves, and this leads to
self-criticism and greater responsibility. Several national
workshops were organized afterwards.
The periodic review is thus more political than scientific in nature; its aim is to improve the quality of the
sites, and as such the credibility and visibility of the
World Network. The report produced by the periodic
review should analyze the functioning of the biosphere
reserve and answer practical questions, for example
whether or not the biosphere reserve has a management
plan. The limits of the review are tied to its nature: it is
a static exercise aimed at upgrading the sites. For many
countries, and for the International Co-ordinating Council (UNESCO, 2007), it has now become important and
necessary to move on to a more dynamic process. The
periodic review form is now being revised so that infor-
mation may be provided on a more regular basis1, especially as concerns progress and changes, advances made
in sustainable practices and knowledge, adaptive management and governance capacities (Textbox n° 39).
Lessons learned
In November 2007, 213 biosphere reserves submitted a report to the Secretariat in the framework of the
periodic review. In June 1998, 48 biosphere reserves had
responded (Oszlanyi J. in UNESCO, 2000),) and 108 in
2001 (UNESCO, 2001). The analysis of these first reports had shown that research and conservation functions were dominant and that dialogue and stakeholder
participation were insufficient, in particular due to the
fact that in the majority of countries the development
function had not yet been sufficiently implemented
(Price, 2000).
Among other impacts of the review, some member
states have made increasing efforts to improve the management and functioning of their sites, and significant
data and reports concerning the sites have been sent to
the Secretariat. Meetings and debate forums have been
organized on the local and national level, and the limits and borders of certain sites renegotiated in order
to improve the implementation of the three functions
(France, Egypt, Switzerland). Several sites which did not
meet the criteria of the Statutory Framework have been
withdrawn by Member States from the World Network
(Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, Norway), thus
tightening the stringency of the latter’s requirements
concerning the integration of the three functions and
stakeholder participation.
Taking stock of changes
and improvements
A biosphere reserve is a dynamic, socio-ecological
space, in constant interaction with its environment in
the widest sense of the term — including its political
environment. Zonation, for example, is the result of
negotiations between stakeholders and institutions, to
1. It must be noted that for certain biosphere reserves, especially those
designated during the first years of the MAB programme, the Secretariat
did not have any data. This is why it was decided to include certain
questions on fauna and flora inventories in the periodic review form,
in order to update the available information for each site of the World
Network.
� � � � � � � �
46
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The periodic review: a learning process to evaluate change
and adaptive capacity in biosphere reserves
I
n 2005, the International Advisory Committee on
biosphere reserves raised the question of the reexamination of the periodic review procedure, with a view
to improving the monitoring of changes made in the
context of the integration of the three functions of biosphere reserves. The Bureau of the MAB Council took
note of these recommendations and in particular of the
necessity to reconsider the periodic review procedure,
which tended to be descriptive and static. The Committee underscored among others the need to improve trend
monitoring and change assessment, and recommended
the setting up of a pilot project. This pilot project would
focus on the integration of the three functions, as well
as on the manner in which the management structure
of the reserve was able to adapt to change. The project
would include the preparation of a complete series of
data for the biosphere reserves, with the elaboration of
reference documents to be used to monitor the evolution of the reserves and improve the efficiency of the
periodic reviews. The pilot project would be in charge of
answering the following questions:
1. What is a well-managed biosphere reserve (a
“good” biosphere reserve), according to the Statutory Framework and the Seville Strategy (UNESCO
1996)?
meet precise objectives which must be accepted by all at
a given time. The zonation system which was coherent
at one time may no longer be relevant in a new context,
when the biosphere reserve and its population are facing
new challenges and transformations (Cibien, 2007).
Changes in forms of governance (political, institutional changes, relations among local communities), the
emergence of new partnerships, of new or renewed interest on the part of towns or villages located near the
site can trigger the necessity to redefine the management
system, borders (geographic and institutional) and the
objectives of the biosphere reserve.
In some countries, the periodic review has led to the
renaming of certain biosphere reserves, after their geographic limits were extended to reflect more accurately
regional dynamics and socio-economic interactions
(France, Canada).
The periodic review represents an opportunity to
carry out a qualitative survey (Cibien, 2007 op.cit.) of
2. How can the changes in a biosphere reserve’s itinerary be measured, highlighting the integration of the
three functions of conservation, development and
logistic support?
3. How can we evaluate the process of adaptation of
governance structures to existing time and space
frames, ensuring the performance of the three functions?
4. Is it possible to use the biosphere reserves as laboratories for the measurement of sustainable development?
This pilot project would be implemented in at least six
countries and six biosphere reserves, in order to test the
procedures and means necessary for the preparation of
a complete set of data and indicators as reference data
to measure trends and changes, the integration of the
three functions and the concertation process among
stakeholders.
The global objective would be to build a corpus of
references on sustainable development practices, based
on experience on the sites, enabling the World Network
of Biosphere Reserves to become an international platform bringing together managers, researchers and decision-makers working in the field of biodiversity and facing global challenges such as climate change.
the actions implemented by the coordination structure
and their results, thanks to the Seville Strategy implementation indicators (Estonia) or other indicators elaborated by the country in the framework of a monitoring
and evaluation programme. It also provides an opportunity to discuss the updating of the zonation system and
assess its relevance, question the objectives and means of
management policies and examine the issues and problems tied to implementation. It is also a time to discuss
weak points. In order to facilitate these reviews and analyses, some countries have implemented monitoring and
evaluation indicators. Some indicators were specifically
designed to evaluate participation and dialogue (Textbox
n° 40). One objective of improvement for the periodic
review is the elaboration of relevant indicators which
can be used in both quantitative and qualitative surveys
and indicate the factors leading to change; these indicators should enable the countries to perform a high quality and dynamic review.
CHAPITRE 4.1 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
A Self-evaluation
Meriem Bouamrane
Chapter 4
Textbox n° 39
47
Textbox n° 40
Participation and dialogue indicators for monitoring
and evaluation in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (GUATEMALA)
T
he core areas and forest concessions of the buffer
zone (multiple-use zones) are being monitored
and evaluated thanks to indicators measuring general
participation in the management of concessions.
Several examples of participation and access to participation indicators, in the framework of the collective
management of resources, are given below:
■ extent of development of the organizational structure: existence of statutes and compliance with
statutes, definition of functions and mechanisms
governing power delegation and participation.
■ representation of various interest groups in the decision-making body (% of groups represented among
those identified).
The periodic review is also a time to take stock of
progress made by the biosphere reserve, especially as
concerns the updating of knowledge, in particular scientific data; competences in resource and ecosystem
management; stakeholder relations pertaining to resource management; and education and information
programmes for the public. It is a time to discuss how
these advances in knowledge, in the experience and
practices of local stakeholders can best be used to define
new management objectives for the biosphere reserve.
These positive results, along with the dialogue forums,
represent a solid basis for seizing new opportunities,
building new partnerships, discussing choices and meeting new challenges.
48
■
■
■
degree of concentration of decision-making in the
decision-making body (does the manager let the
board of directors participate in the decision-making? To what extent do women participate?).
access to the accounting and management system
(do the members know the system and to they have
access to the information generated?).
building capacity to foster participation: educational level, investment in educational resources
(research grants, funding for teachers, etc.).
Sufficient time for exchanges
and dialogue between stakeholders
and institutions
The periodic review is an opportunity to mobilize
the competences of stakeholders and institutions both
on the local and national levels. Many countries organize
local and national workshops, bringing together the key
persons of different biosphere reserves and using local
and national scientific competences and resources, with
the support of the MAB National Committee (Textbox
n° 41).
The recommendations of the international meeting of experts “Seville +5” on the implementation of the
Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 2001) provide details concerning local and international responsibilities for the
periodic review and underscore the crucial role of local
stakeholder participation and involvement (Textbox
n° 42).
The periodic review represents a long period of dialogue, and requires sufficient human and financial resources to ensure its efficiency and lasting effects. During that time, genuine concertation approaches and
procedures can be implemented, making it possible for
the stakeholders to express their wishes, opinions, concerns, hopes and expectations.
It is also an opportunity for many countries to apply
and test different approaches and methods of dialogue,
with the possibility of innovating in terms of concertation and co-construction of long term goals. Researchers in the social and natural sciences can play a key role
by encouraging interdisciplinarity. Research can act as
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Creation of a multi-institutional working group in the Oberlausitetzer Heide –
und Teichlandschaft Biosphere Reserve (GERMANY)
F
or the periodic review, a working group was created
with representatives from different Länder, administrative units of the biosphere reserve, the MAB National
Committee as well as scientists. The periodic review
was carried out following the international recommendations of the Statutory Framework as well as the criteria
developed on the national level for the designation and
evaluation of biosphere reserves such as:
“Administration and organization:
(15) The local population must be enabled to share
in designing the biosphere reserve as its area for living,
working and engaging in recreation. Proof must be supplied that suitable forms of citizens’ participation are
being practiced”.
Textbox n° 42
Recommendations of working group 8 on the impact
of the periodic review, Pamplona, Spain (UNESCO, 2001)
1.
The process of developing a periodic review should
be used as an opportunity to strengthen support
for biosphere reserve and raise awareness among
national agencies, NGOs and other stakeholders.
At the level of each biosphere reserve, local stakeholders should be actively involved in the review
process.
2. The main purpose of the review is to ensure that
each biosphere reserve effectively fulfils all three
functions of a biosphere reserve, or has the potential to do so, inter alia through an effective and robust institutional arrangement.
3. The review should therefore pay particular attention
to the institutional aspect. The process of developing a periodic review should be interactive, involving at least the coordinators(s) of the biosphere
reserve(s) concerned and the national Committee
or focal point. Where appropriate, a workshop involving multidisciplinary experts/scientists (including coordinators of other biosphere reserve in the
country) should also be held as part of the process.
Where possible, field visits should be organized to
contribute to the process and reinforce local commitment.
4. The process should also facilitate new policy guidelines emerging in the country concerned for the improvement/expansion of existing biosphere reserve
and the selection of new ones.
5. Biosphere reserve are dynamic entities with respect
to policies, management, land uses and conservation. For each biosphere reserve, sets of qualitative
and/or quantitative indicators should be developed
and applied, in collaboration with local stakeholders, as tools to continuously evaluate the success
of the biosphere reserve in achieving its functions.
These progress indicators should be easy to use,
cheap, and quick.
6. The MAB Secretariat should provide support for the
compilation, dissemination and critical analysis of
national experiences of the review process, possibly
through workshops. The MAB Secretariat, including UNESCO’s regional offices, should also provide
support, when requested, for the preparation of reviews and implementation of recommendations.
7. To improve follow-up of recommendations on the
periodic review, the Secretariat should request that
information on measures taken should be provided
in time for the following meeting of the Advisory
Committee.
CHAPITRE 4.1 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
A Self-evaluation
Meriem Bouamrane
Chapter 4
Textbox n° 41
49
Textbox n° 43
The use of participatory tools
in the Fanjingshan Biosphere
Reserve (CHINA)
I
n 1999, the Fanjingshan Biosphere Reserve submitted its periodic review report. The advisory
committee on biosphere reserves welcomed the
progress made since the creation of the biosphere
reserve in 1986 but recommended deeper involvement of the local population in its management.
The following year, the biosphere reserve implemented a host of new methods aiming to encourage
local participation, such as the Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA). PRA, a method often put forth by
FAO or the World Bank, can be used by communities to evaluate their resources, identify problems
and classify them according to importance. Management strategies can then be drawn up to address
these problems.
a mediator, showing the diversity of interests and viewpoints, as well as the rich variety of possible choices and
proposals (Textbox n° 43 and 44).
Cooperation among researchers, managers and local
stakeholders also makes it possible to update key data,
take stock of available information in the biosphere reserve, compare data and identify new needs in terms of
research and capacity building, including training. The
periodic review is an opportunity to encourage people
living in the biosphere reserve to contribute, on a voluntary basis, to the collection of data and information,
following a “citizen science” approach increasingly used
and tested in several biosphere reserves of the World
Network (France, Canada, United Kingdom, USA).
Building a common future thanks to
negotiation
The periodic review is a time for debate and negotiation, at a particular moment in the life of a biosphere
reserve. Innovative tools may be used for this purpose
and the role of the “companion” approach is essential.
Indeed, rather than something done once and for all,
Textbox n°44
Mediator research: role plays as the basis for collective thinking for the
sustainable management of ecosystems: the case of the Camargue (delta du Rhône)
Biosphere Reserve (FRANCE)
I
n the Camargue Biosphere Reserve, a role play was
developed to trigger collective debate on the sustainable management of reed-beds (Phragmites australis)
and the conservation of the bittern (Botaurus stellaris),
a heron which has become vulnerable in Europe. The
aims were to raise awareness on the following issues:
■ biological and hydrological interdependence, their
dynamics and different space and time scales;
■ the technical-economic and socio-cultural aspects
of the different uses of reed-beds;
■ the advantages and limits of concertation and negotiation for the management of natural areas that
do not fall under legal protection measures.
The model used as the basis for the role play was a spatial representation of an archetypal wet zone, divided
into two pieces of property, one privately owned, the
other belonging to the municipality, the two areas hydrologically interdependent. Each property was divided
into eight management units. Land use and water management decisions were made by the players, following
negotiation, concerning the wet zone, the property, and
50
the management units. The short and long term effects
of the wet zone management decisions made by the
farmers, the reed gatherers, the fishermen, the hunters
and naturalists were then simulated thanks to a computerized model.
Several sessions were scheduled with different stakeholders: students, nature conservation project managers, scientists and protected natural area managers.
Overall, the role plays (and the simulation) made
it possible to:
■ facilitate the sharing of perceptions among stakeholders in order to promote a wider grasp of the
situation;
■ stimulate stakeholder interaction;
■ help raise awareness of the impact of actions carried out in their own environment and that of others, in order to better evaluate their actions;
■ provide the tools and means of imagining and collectively evaluating territorial management alternatives.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
make it possible to underscore what needs to be improved in a biosphere reserve and support the efforts of
countries to maintain their sites. The periodic review is
an investment in terms of human and financial resources
and makes it possible to mobilize and add value to local,
national and regional competences.
The involvement of local and national stakeholders,
countries, regional and international stakeholders is a
unique opportunity for sharing experience and practices, leading to a collective learning experience on a global
level. This exercise mobilizes unique networks of stakeholders with competence, knowledge, know-how, which
should be more widely shared among members of the
World Network.
The periodic review has developed into a solid and
important foundation for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, enabling it to increase its visibility and
credibility as a standard of reference for sustainable development practices.
■■■
n
Bibliography
Bioret, F. et al. 1995. Méthode d’élaboration de guides d’aide à la gestion pour
les réserves de biosphère : application aux réserves de biosphère françaises.
Dossier MAB 19. Unesco, Paris.
Beuret, J. E. 2006. Environnement et développement mis en dialogue dans
les réserves de biosphère : recueil de fiches techniques. UNESCO-MAB.
Cibien, C. 2007. Un examen périodique des réserves de biosphère, pour
quoi faire ? La lettre de la biosphère. N. 7 Juillet 2007. Comité MAB
France.
Price, M. (ed.). 2000. EuroMAB 2000. Proceedings of the First Joint
Meeting of EuroMAB National Committees and Biosphere Reserve
Coordinators. 10-14 April 2000. Cambridge, UK.
Price, M. F. 1996. People in biosphere reserves: An evolving concept. Society
and Natural Resources, 9: pp.645 –654.
UNESCO. 2001. Seville + 5. International meeting of experts. Compte
rendus. Pamplona, Spain. 23-27 October 2000. MAB Report Series
N. 69. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001236/
123605m.pdf
UNESCO. 2000. Information on the results of the survey on the
implementation of the Seville Strategy. Sixteenth Session of the
International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere
Programme. UNESCO Paris 6-10 November 2000.
SC-OO/CONF.208/3 add.
CHAPITRE 4.1 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
A Self-evaluation
Meriem Bouamrane
Chapter 4
the identification of objectives, issues, stakeholders and
their representatives is a process which must be regularly repeated in the concerted management of a biosphere
reserve.
The tools and approaches presented in this chapter (see also this work Etienne et al.), and in particular the “companion modeling” approach are rooted in
the co-construction of issues raised in connection with
the management of a territory and of its resources. This
co-construction mobilizes researchers and managers in
an interdisciplinary approach, enabling them to build a
common view of the management goals of the biosphere
reserve. These approaches and tools help better understand and foresee changes thanks to dynamic models,
simplified representations of reality. The elaboration of
scenarios can help stakeholders make choices for the
future on the basis of available information and shared
evaluations of existing practices and future options.
The “companion modeling” approach, applied with
the support of the French MAB National Committee
in several biosphere reserves during periodic reviews
(Etienne et al. op. cit.) is one approach among others,
which can trigger and facilitate dialogue. Dialogue must
then be pursued, formalized, ritualized and translated
both in terms of biosphere reserve management and in
terms of political support (Textbox n° 45).
The periodic review represents a long and intense
period of dialogue among stakeholders and institutions,
highlighting what has been accomplished over the past
ten years and providing a opportunity to discuss plans
for the next ten years.
The periodic review is not only a time for dialogue
and exchange, for reflecting and taking stock of what
has been accomplished, it is also a key moment for innovation. It is an effective way of mobilizing and involving key stakeholders, the inhabitants of the biosphere
reserve, researchers, the MAB National Committee, local
officials and political institutions. It is an opportunity to
diversify approaches and methods to perform this review
(participatory approaches, role games, monitoring and
assessment indicators, companion modeling, national
workshops, forums and discussion platforms, ...). It is
an opportunity to learn, both for the stakeholders and
for the World Network, thanks to the accumulation of
knowledge, experience and practices from different biosphere reserves.
The review also mobilizes local and national stakeholders (in particular the MAB National Committee), as
well as regional stakeholders such as Regional Networks
and UNESCO Regional Offices, which play an important role in the follow-up of recommendations made on
the international level by the Advisory Committee and
approved by the MAB Bureau. These recommendations
51
Textbox n°45
The “Dyfi Biosphere” Partnership, Dyfi Biosphere Reserve (UNITED KINGDOM)
T
he Dyfi Biosphere Reserve was designated by
UNESCO in 1976 and does not meet the criteria
of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework,
adopted in 1995. When the United Kingdom joined
UNESCO in 1997, a periodic review was launched in order to modernize the Dyfi Biosphere Reserve in accordance with these criteria. Locally, the project was received
with enthusiasm. However, the Dyfi Valley (known under its Welsh name as Bro Dyfi) had already received
several other designations (Natura 2000 European network, Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and Special
Area of Marine Conservation, National Natural Reserve
and Ramsar Site). It soon appeared that the only advantage gained through the biosphere reserve status was
that local communities would be encouraged to work
more actively in favour of sustainable development.
Rather than modernize and extend the biosphere
reserve and then hope for the participation of local
stakeholders, it was decided to let the latter decide on
the future of the biosphere reserve. The idea was that
if the choice was freely made, enthusiasm and hope
would ensure that the designation of biosphere reserve
would be beneficial to both stakeholders and the natural
environment.
The “Dyfi Biosphere” Partnership was created with
a view to managing the stakeholder commitment process and in particular to determine whether the biosphere
reserve should be extended or withdrawn from the
World Network. The goal of the Partnership was clearly
not to represent local stakeholders but to inform them
and involve them in the finalizing of the report if they
wish. The members of the Partnership belonged to organizations which were in a position to block the modernization of the biosphere reserve and whose support
was crucial to the project’s successful outcome.
52
The Partners included the four local authorities covering the geographical area, two syndicates representing
the interests of local farmers, the Countryside Council
for Wales, a semi-public institution in charge of the
natural environment, the Welsh Language Board, two
Welsh Assembly Government Departments, Ecodyfi (a
key NGO concerned with sustainable development),
Tourism Partnership Mid Wales and the Environment
Agency Wales (a semi-public institution in charge of
environmental protection).
The Partnership recruited a Community Engagement
Officer in charge of relations with the local communities
of the Dyfi Valley. His duties included providing relevant
information on biosphere reserves and encouraging the
population’s active participation, vital to the process.
The stakeholder engagement process involved: a series of public meetings on a given theme, in the valley;
participation in local agricultural events; presentations
in local clubs and circle societies; seminars upon invitation with key stakeholders to explore the relevance of
the biosphere reserve designation for key sectors of agriculture, forestry and culture. In addition, all the households living in the Valley received a brochure about the
biosphere reserve, explaining opportunities and options.
Following this awareness and information campaign,
the Partnership held other meeting with groups of key
stakeholders to examine problems in greater detail; a
formal consultation was then set up, asking stakeholders whether the biosphere reserve should be extended
and modernized. The answer to this question was a resounding “yes”.
The dialogue is now continuing with local authorities, the Welsh Assembly Government, and British institutions such as the UK MAB National Committee, in
order to prepare the review form.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
An example of companion approach which
could be used during the periodic review
ver since the Seville Conference, the French MAB
National Committee has been interested in finding ways to mobilize local society, involve its citizens in the “life” of biosphere reserves and contribute
to building its future; its aim is to help them become
open dialogue forums, at the service of conservation and
sustainable development, requiring specific concertation
approaches.
Basis of the approach
Complex relationships, involving ecological and social dynamics, are at play in biosphere reserves. Local
stakeholders are not only the actors, but should also be
the makers of management policies. What can be done to
develop a new form of local management which is more
open, dynamic, capable of adaptation and anticipation,
creating partnerships among the different stakeholders,
contributing to preserve natural resources thanks to sustainable management, on the basis of quality scientific
data and cultural creativity? How can the collective intelligence of the local population be mobilized?
Each stakeholder has his own worldview and his
own idea of what exists in his world, and this leads to different analyses, different behaviours, and sometimes to
conflict. The companion approach described here aims
to facilitate the exchange of viewpoints and dialogue
among stakeholders, to conduct a collective analysis of
territorial issues, in terms of sustainable development
and biodiversity conservation, and to highlight priorities of action in view of establishing a management policy through co-construction exercises. Given the wide
variety of viewpoints, the approach aims to collectively
determine the management problems encountered and
identify the conflicts.
It is also necessary to mobilize the special knowledge necessary for managing a biosphere reserve, as concerns both its nature and the human activities that take
place within it, in order to conduct scientific monitoring,
studies and research in a more operational and targeted
way (Textbox n° 46).
Chapter 4
4.2 –
Concrete applications
The workshops are a forum of intense debates conducted by moderators and leading to the collective construction of shared references. This work is essential
each time it is necessary to mobilize or remobilize biosphere reserve stakeholders to carry through a collective
project. This type of approach is thus useful during the
preparation stages, before the creation of the biosphere
reserve, in order to take stock of the issues at hand, the
Textbox n°46
What is the origin of this approach?
T
he integration of simulation models to aid collective decision-making for the management of natural resources is one of the specific aspects of adaptive
management (Holling, 1978; Walter, 1986). But these
models are much more seldom used to stimulate stakeholder participation in the elaboration of physical planning scenarios (Costanza and Ruth, 1998; Bousquet et
al., 2004). The gradual shift from planning documents
based on authoritarian or rationalistic models to mediation tools based on a democratic model (Chauvin, 2002)
required the creation of new tools for the construction
and sharing of information. A team of researchers from
the Cirad, the INRA, the Cemagref and the CNRS thus
developed a so-called “companion modeling” approach
� � � � � �
making it possible to involve stakeholders in the definition of a sustainable territorial development project
(www.commod.org). This method was tested with
complex cases (natural spaces with multiple uses, biosphere reserves), or in situations of conflict (Opération
Grand Site, urban-forest interfaces).
The final part of the approach is rooted in a debate
conducted by the network of biosphere reserve coordinators concerning management policies for biosphere
reserves, which resulted in the “Method for the elaboration of support guides for the management of French
biosphere reserves” published by UNESCO (Bioret
et al., 1998).
� � � � �
��
CHAPITRE 4.2 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
An example of companion approach which could be used during the periodic review
Michel Etienne, Catherine Cibien, Jean Claude Génot
53
available knowledge on the site, the important stakeholders. During the construction of the project, at the time
of periodic reviews, when it is felt that boundaries must
be modified or that a new zoning plan, better adapted to
current management issues is needed, or yet again prior
to the writing of the management plan or policy required
by the Statutory framework of the World Network, this
approach makes it possible to give deeper content to the
“perspectives” chapter. In the case of transboundary biosphere reserves, this method can foster greater integration and mutual understanding.
Last, this approach can also be useful on an ad hoc
basis, in complex management situations (numerous
stakeholders with contradictory agendas) or conflicts.
Depending on these various contexts, the method
can be applied in different ways: either globally or partially, depending on the issue. In the case of conflicts or
important management problems, computerized models
can be added in order to establish scenarios, and possibly role-playing games, which we will not be addressed
in this article.
Who launches the process?
The commissioners
In each situation, it is important to check the legitimacy of the body or person asking local stakeholders
to participate in a construction exercise concerning collective issues. In biosphere reserves, the coordination
structure seems to be in the best position to launch such
a process. The invitation usually proceeds from the managing authority.
In the case of biosphere reserves in the making, the
initiative can come from an administration, an NGO or
from elected officials involved in the creation process.
In reserves which have existed for a long time, and
which need wide-ranging changes and for which it is difficult to find a local leader willing to launch the review
process, the MAB national Committee has legitimacy to
initiate this process (Textbox n° 47).
Textbox n°47
The review of the Camargue Biosphere Reserve (FRANCE)
In 1977: The Camargue Biosphere Reserve was
designated by Unesco. The area is a natural reserve of
international interest for wetland conservation.
In 1995: it became evident that the biosphere
reserve no longer met the criteria set during the Seville Conference. How could the necessary changes be
brought to the reserve, given the fact that there was no
identifiable leader? MAB France then decided to bring
together the largest possible panel of stakeholders actively engaged on the biogeographical area of the Rhône
delta: administrations of the two concerned regions and
departements, mayors, socio-economic actors, researchers, NGOs. The committee proposed either a complete
review of the biosphere reserve, or the withdrawal of the
designation. The review of the biosphere reserve meant
defining new boundaries that accounted for the Camargue ecosystem as a global entity, involving all local
stakeholders, and identifying an appropriate coordination body.
A plenary meeting was organized to provide information on the process, launch a consultation and col-
54
lective debate, reaching out as widely as possible. A
companion modeling approach was briefly conducted
(it was impossible to mobilize participants for more than
a half-day), which highlighted the diversity of points of
view on local resources and interactions between stakeholders. The review project was approved by the participants, who designated a “hard core” of organizations in
charge of elaborating the new biosphere reserve. They
asked MAB France, which is neutral, to head the process
and designated a “local secretary”, the Regional Natural
Park of Camargue.
Frequent work sessions were held during a year and
a half in order to gradually construct the biosphere reserve project thanks to debate and concertation, and
to integrate into the process the Syndicat mixte de la
Camargue Gardoise, located on the west bank of the
Rhône river.
In 2006 : UNESCO officially recognized the
Camargue Biosphere Reserve (Delta du rhône), jointly
coordinated by the Regional Natural Park and the Syndicat mixte de la Camargue Gardoise.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
How to prepare the workshops
Clarify the issue to be discussed
The reason why these debates are organized must
be clearly stated and must concern a clearly defined territory. The question to be addressed is formulated by
the commissioner, in collaboration with the group facilitators.
Creating a relevant work group: identifying
partners
The choice of partners can be based on many criteria. These are relatively variable; depending on the case
and what the commissioners prefer, three types of situations are possible:
■ Emphasis is put on a global view of the system: in
this case, participants will be “technicians” whose
local experience legitimates their being called on to
speak on behalf of the stakeholders they see every
day. It is important not to leave out an activity which
a priori plays a determining role, and to avoid overrepresentation of one activity compared to others
(for example, by inviting three forestry technicians
because public forest, private forest and forest wildlife each depend on different organizations which
are active on the territory).
■ While maintaining a global view of the system, emphasis is put on the involvement of local stakeholders: in this case participants will be representatives
Chapter 4
The group facilitators
In general, it is better if the persons who conduct
the workshops are not involved in local activities, more
specifically, are not concerned with the problem to be
addressed.
The facilitators must be chosen for their aptitude
and legitimacy in conducting debates during the co-construction process. They must thus have been trained in
this approach. Their training can be taken care of by the
MAB national committees, as in France and in Sweden.
A team of at least two people is necessary, one person to
conduct the debate and the second person as secretary
and observer. Additional group facilitators may be necessary if the group is divided into subgroups.
The advantage of having a scientist as group facilitator is the fact that s/he is relatively independent, completely detached from local socio-economic concerns
and can quickly master the companion tool. In this case,
it is best to choose a scientist whose research field borders both the life sciences and the humanities, and who
has had experience leading debates among researchers
and managers. Mediators or public debate specialists can
also play this role, as long as they are trained or knowledgeable on questions pertaining to territorial management, biodiversity and local development.
Discussions can be conducted by agents of the biosphere reserve or of the local authority, depending on the
content of the issue to be discussed, since the facilitator
must remain independent.
Textbox n°48
Facilitating the workshops
T
he role of the workshop facilitators is to be the
group’s “hand”. The facilitator conducts the debate in such a way as to ensure that group members enjoy a real exchange and that they agree on the terms they
use. The facilitator intervenes only when a proposal is
formulated too generically, using terms which can have
several meanings and/or lead to misunderstandings. For
example, the term “manager” is too vague, and must
always be refused and replaced by a more precise term
defining the stakeholder. Similarly, the word “wood”
means both “a place where trees grow” (the woods)
and the material resulting from tree development”. But
“woods” (first meaning) do not necessarily produce
“wood” (in the sense of a resource used by someone).
The assistant observes the process and writes down
what occurs during the session.
To ensure that each participant, regardless of social position, shyness, etc. can give his/her opinion,
the group facilitator gives the floor to each of the participants in turn. This fosters equal access to speaking
time. The first person to speak is never the same.
It is necessary to facilitate the involvement of
each and every person in this co-construction process,
in order to create a climate of trust, transparency and
open debate. Diagrams, visible by all the participants
and showing each of the proposals are constructed as
the meeting goes along, either on a paperboard or on a
computer with simultaneous projection (Power Point,
for example).
CHAPITRE 4.2 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
An example of companion approach which could be used during the periodic review
Michel Etienne, Catherine Cibien, Jean Claude Génot
55
of local stakeholders chosen for their legitimacy
(they have been democratically elected) and the relevance of their activity to conservation and regional
development.
■ Emphasis is put on the involvement of local stakeholders, while remaining attentive to the diversity
of the system: participants will then be chosen with
respect to the diversity of their activities.
The list of workshop participants should logically be
made up of members of management committees, in
other words:
■ representatives of various local/regional authorities
(in France: communes (municipalities), groups of
communes or agglomerations, conseil général, conseil régional);
■ representatives of administrations (in charge of the
environment and physical planning, agriculture,
fishing and forests, public works, economic, industrial or cultural issues);
■ representatives of public bodies in charge of managing land and biological resources (forests, water);
■ representatives of associations (naturalists, hunters, fishermen, nature sportsmen, cultural heritage,
etc.);
■ representatives of socio-professional bodies (Chamber of Agriculture, Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Departmental Committee in charge of
tourism);
■ socio-economic actors (hotel and restaurant owners, farmers, fishermen, industrialists, artisans, small
and medium-sized enterprises).
The role of researchers in the process is variable. Generally, scientists are selected on the basis of their knowledge
of the main issues at hand on the given site. Some will be
involved from the start, others may join the process later,
if participants feel the need for additional expertise on
a theme which is particularly important for the understanding of how the system works. Local “erudites” may
also be asked to participate.
A compromise must be found between the necessity
of ensuring that the main and most influential stakeholders of the biosphere reserve territory are represented,
and the need to limit the number of participants, since
too many participants can hamper the effectiveness of a
meeting (thirty participants is probably the maximum).
ability and constraints of the persons one wishes to involve in the process.
Some basic principles should be observed:
■ The meeting place should be easily accessible to the
participants and as neutral as possible, unless clearly
identified as the legitimate headquarters of the partner who is calling the meeting or raising the issue
(for instance, the biosphere reserve headquarters).
■ Each session should last at least 2 hours, and participants must remain focused on the collective exercise. The ideal solution is to organize the process
over a period not exceeding one month. This can
be in the form of a two-and-a-half-day workshop,
or one day a week, or three day-long sessions with a
ten-day interval in between each of them.
■ The invitation should also be formulated in an attractive manner in order to avoid missing important
partners.
The workshops
First stage:
sharing representations of the territory
and understanding its dynamics
During this stage, the participants must identify together the territory’s development potential. The latter
depends partly on present resources and partly on stakeholders who play an important role in the given area.
The ecological dynamics that contribute to the quantitative, qualitative and spatial evolution of certain resources
are identified, as well as social dynamics. The interaction
between stakeholders and resources is also discussed.
How should the participants be invited to the
workshops
The choice of place, duration and periodicity of the
workshops depends on numerous external factors which
should be carefully considered, in particular the avail-
56
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 4
Participants are encouraged to respond collectively to a series of questions asked by the workshop facilitator.
Figure 5
QUESTION N°1: What are the territory’s main
resources and what is the information
��
��
most necessary to ensure their sustaina��
�
�
ble use?
��
��
��
��
In this exercise, participants draw up
a list of the territory’s important resources
��
��
��
��
�
�
��
��
(Figure 5), the word “resource” referring
�
�
�
�
��
to any good or product used by a stake�
��
��
holder.
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
The information pertaining to resources is tied to indicators that make it
��
��
��
possible to quantify or qualify their value.
��
Thus, several indicators may be relevant for
��
��
��
a single resource. For example, many different
��
�
�
��
indicators depending on different stakeholders
��
present may refer to the forest: the number of cubic meters of wood produced per hectare (foresters), the
number of game animals caught (hunters), the quality
of silence (residents), the harmony of colors (tourists),
Figure 6
etc.
If certain resources are temporary, it is necessary to
��
specify their period of existence (season, good years)
and/or their life span (life span of a building, time to
��
��
��
silt up a pond). The resources which function as exter��
nal variables but which are determining factors in the
��
��
��
functioning of a system are also indicated (e.g. climate
variations).
��
��
��
Last, the processes governing the main transformations undergone by these resources are also listed; these
��
��
��
��
may be either natural or man-made.
��
��
��
��
��
��
QUESTION N°2: Who are the main stakeholders who
��
��
��
seem able to, or who should play a decisive role in
��
��
��
��
��
the sustainable management of this territory?
The list of stakeholders who intervene on the site is
drawn up, with a distinction between those whose practices have a direct impact on the dynamics of certain
resources of the territory, and those whose action has an
indirect impact (stakeholders who encourage the latter
stakeholders to change their practices) (Figure 6).
ONCFS:
EDF:
ONF-RTM:
DDAF:
SAFER:
APPMA:
DDE:
PME:
PMI:
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
French Hunting and Wildlife Department (administration in charge of wildlife management)
French National Electricity Company
French National Department of Forests-Restoration of Mountain Land
French Departmental Office for Fishing and Forestry (Ministry of Agriculture)
Land Management and Rural Establishment Agencies
Fishing and Protection of Aquatic Environment Association
French Departmental Office of Public Works (Ministry of Public Works)
Small and Medium-size Enterprises
Small and Medium-size Industries
CHAPITRE 4.2 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
An example of companion approach which could be used during the periodic review
Michel Etienne, Catherine Cibien, Jean Claude Génot
57
QUESTION N°3: How do the main stakeholders use the
resources they wish to obtain?
In order to answer this question, one must identify
the interactions between resources and the previously
identified stakeholders, and these interactions must be
described (Figure 7). With the help of the facilitator the
participants draw arrows linking stakeholders and resources and formulate the verb describing the nature of
the interaction.
When the diagrams are complex, the exercise should
be divided into several phases.
There are two possible options:
1. If the issues have not been clearly defined beforehand, the facilitator can suggest regrouping resources per category (for instance: constructions, water,
animal, plant, etc.), then make up work groups
based on the three or four resources which seem
most important to the participants. The next phase
must then be devoted to sharing the work and establishing links between the different diagrams.
2. If specific issues appeared clearly during the discussions accompanying the co-construction phase, the
facilitator will propose that the participants draw up
an interaction diagram per issue. She/he must make
sure the resources and stakeholders mentioned by
the participants are linked to the issue being worked
on, and if there is some doubt, ask the participants
to clarify the link.
For example, concerning the extension of the Camargue
Biosphere Reserve, the following issues were identified:
agriculture, cattle-raising and water; tourism and leisure;
interface between industrial zone and natural zone; real
estate. A diagram was drawn for each “topic”, describ-
ing the relations among the main stakeholders and main
resources.
Second stage: identifying research and
development priorities
For a biosphere reserve, better knowledge for better
management means identifying gaps in knowledge concerning important management issues.
From the sustainable development viewpoint, some
questions must necessarily be raised concerning the ecological, economic, social and cultural viability of the
biosphere reserve’s pattern of development. Do we have
enough objective indicators enabling us to assess the
situation?
The facilitator asks the participants to establish a
list of all the activities that exist on the territory and to
determine which part of the biosphere reserve is concerned. Either it concerns an area of the biosphere reserve, or a specific element: rivers, grottoes, etc. Their
relative importance must be determined. Next, the ecological, economic, social and cultural impact of each of
these activities is evaluated, as well as the level of scientific or empirical knowledge the participants have on
this subject (see Table).
Third stage: construction of the biosphere
reserve project
Once the issues and potential of territory have been
clarified and shared by the various participants (who
are all local stakeholders), one must imagine, together
with the main stakeholders, the type of actions to be implemented so as to ensure the sustainable conservation
of resources and development of the biosphere reserve.
Figure 7
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
58
��
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
��
��
Persons
concerned
Area
concerned
Ecological impact
■
Positive,
negative,
neutral
Economic impact
■
■
■
■
■
Draw
up the
list
■
■
Type
Number
■
Topical
(describe)
Area
(% of total)
Low,
medium,
high
■
■
Increasing,
decreasing
(if necessary)
■
■
■
Describe
if necessary
Do not know
Crucial issues, which should be the priority focus of research and monitoring, should also be discussed, as well
as educational, training and information policies.
The priority zones of intervention are determined,
in terms of both conservation and development, requiring map work, following the zoning system specific to
biosphere reserves.
Following the workshops designed for the collective
elaboration of the major directions of the biosphere reserve project, thematic work groups are also organized.
After discussion, a document is drawn up and written by
the team in charge of coordinating the biosphere reserve,
but other partners may also be involved. This document
should be submitted for discussion to the main stakeholders, then formally approved by the local authorities
and elected officials.
The document’s final form is flexible, and can be
adapted to diverse institutional situations; its life span
is also variable. However, the latter must be determined
within a span of ten years, corresponding to the periodicity of biosphere reserve reviews.
A few words concerning means
In order to implement this approach in a satisfactory
way, the biosphere reserve must have sufficient human
and financial resources. Indeed, these basic conditions
are necessary in order to:
■ ensure the visibility of its actions, by raising awareness and providing the necessary information to the
population and socio-economic stakeholders;
■ give sufficient legitimacy to its function as facilitator and coordinator, to its effort to decompartmen-
■
Describe
per type
Social impact
■
Positive,
negative,
neutral
■
Low,
medium,
high
■
Increasing,
decreasing
(if necessary)
■
Do not know
■
State of
knowledge
Positive,
negative,
neutral
Low,
medium,
high
■
■
Increasing,
decreasing
(if necessary)
Describe
if necessary
Scientific,
empirical
Nil,
poor,
middling,
good,
excellent
Do not know
talize structures working in the same space, which
requires considerable know-how;
■ ensure its political and technical ability to bring together local energies in a global territorial project,
materialized thanks to a formally approved document, which guarantees the coherence of its actions.
The constitution of a biosphere reserve requires a
great deal of effort (organization and facilitation of
meetings, negotiations with local, regional, national
stakeholders), which is impossible to carry through
without the necessary means.
Beyond financial issues, this effort requires trained staff,
and the establishment of constructive ties with specialized organizations, including research organizations.
Chapter 4
Activities
■■■
n
Bibliography
Bioret, F. et al. 1995. Méthode d’élaboration de guides d’aide
à la gestion pour les réserves de biosphère: application
aux réserves de biosphère françaises. Dossier MAB 19.
UNESCO, Paris.
Chauvin C. 2002. L’aménagement, outil de suivi de gestion durable,
Ingénieries, n° spécial Aménagement forestier, p. 29-34.
Costanza R., Ruth M. 1998. Using dynamic modelling to scope
environmental problems and build consensus. Environnemental
Management, 22, pp. 183-195.
Etienne M., collectif ComMod. 2005. La modélisation comme outil
d’accompagnement. Natures, Sciences et Sociétés, 16(2).
Holling C. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management,
John Wiley, London.
Walters C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources,
New York, McGraw Hill.
CHAPITRE 4.2 – The PERIODIC REVIEW: a KEY MOMENT in the DIALOGUE PROCESS
An example of companion approach which could be used during the periodic review
Michel Etienne, Catherine Cibien, Jean Claude Génot
59
Chapter 5
The dialogue
within the World Network
61
ince the adoption of the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework (UNESCO, 1996), dialogue and
concertation have become the underlying principles
of biosphere reserve creation and management. In order
to implement these principles, stakeholders, in particular those in charge of coordinating and managing biosphere reserves, must develop new competences.
The Seville Strategy has thus urged stakeholders and
institutions in charge of biosphere reserves, especially
those created after 1995, to find new methods and test
practices fostering dialogue, concertation, as well as
conflict management and prevention.
The preceding chapters present some of the methods and practices of dialogue experimented in the
World Network. The wealth of existing knowledge on
dialogue far exceeds what has been reported here: many
more approaches and experiences still deserve to be better known and shared.
Recognizing and building
competence and capacity
for dialogue
The World Network is a hotbed of local, individual
and institutional talent and competence for dialogue.
The implementation of the Seville Strategy has contributed to the emergence of dialogue and mediation experts.
In the field, by working towards achieving the ambitious goals of a biosphere reserve, many biosphere reserve managers and coordinators have become the principal dialogue facilitators on the site. Thanks to their
extensive knowledge concerning land issues, some have
become dialogue experts, creating links between decision-making bodies and local communities, external
organizations (administrative, technical, financial) and
management authorities.
The competence of these key stakeholders lies mainly in their personal qualities and their past experience
in the biosphere reserve, conducting working groups,
coordinating activities and managing conflicts among
institutions and stakeholders.
Although many have never received formal training,
for these stakeholders dialogue is an ongoing and daily
process.
The role of dialogue facilitator appears more clearly
through the term of “coordinator”, adopted by the participants of the EuroMAB Regional Network (EuroMAB,
2005). Indeed, the word highlights the nature of the
task, which is to create links among the different stakeholders and areas of the biosphere reserve (issues tied
to zonation).
However, beyond these personal competences, it is a
fact that the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders
and institutions in charge of coordinating a biosphere
reserve still remain to be clearly defined when coordinating and conducting dialogue on the territorial level, and
when mediation is required in case of conflict and decision-making difficulties.
Since Seville, stakeholders in charge of biosphere reserves have been facing higher expectations in matters of
dialogue and concertation. These new expectations have
to be clearly explained in order to ensure better participation and concertation, particularly in the biosphere
reserves created before the Seville Strategy. For example, foresters trained to protect a given space or resource
from all forms of human development (considered a
pressure) and to use force if necessary were expected
to begin negotiating, without having been trained, with
local communities which for years had been barred from
conducting activities on that site.
This change of perspective on the vision of a biosphere reserve according to the criteria of the Statutory
Framework has led to a change in the roles, functions
and responsibilities of the stakeholders and authorities in charge of managing the area. On one hand these
changes made possible the emergence of genuine talents
for dialogue and on the other hand they revealed the
crucial need to develop individual and organizational
capacities for dialogue and concertation.
Some countries have devoted a great deal of energy
to building local and national capacities in matters of
conflict prevention and management for the different
categories of stakeholders working in a biosphere reserve (managers, local communities, institutions, decision-makers, etc.). Workshops and training programmes
have been set up to meet their needs.
A biosphere reserve thrives on the pooled competences of such stakeholders in matters of biodiversity,
education, area management, facilitating and negotiating. They represent the indispensable link between institutions and groups which do not share the same objectives or perception on land issues. These stakeholders
have earned a solid reputation thanks to their work,
their talent for mediation, their knowledge.
The skill and competences of these dialogue experts
must be given greater recognition within the World Network. They are an asset for the countries and for the
World Network, which should be shared with the rest
of the world.
The emergence of dialogue skills within the biosphere
reserves has gone along with an increase in knowledge
� � � � � � � � �
62
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Knowledge gained from
adaptive co-management
to be shared
The adaptive2 management approach implemented
in biosphere reserves favours learning processes related
to interactions between social dynamics and ecological
dynamics. The biosphere reserve’s function as logistical
support (learning function) fosters first and foremost
the collaboration of scientists from different disciplines.
Given the objective of sustainable development, the promotion of a “science of sustainability”3 requires that researchers working in different disciplines be given the
means to collaborate. Interdisciplinarity — a productive
and complex approach — requires genuine openness
and willingness to exchange among participants in view
of collective achievements. Robert Barbault (2006) identifies three levels of interdisciplinarity: a) interdisciplinarity among biologists, b) interdisciplinarity among all
the disciplines belonging to the life sciences; c) interdisciplinarity between the life sciences and the humanities
and social sciences.
This interdisciplinary work is a “genuine social process which involves:
■ applying rules that facilitate collective work and regulate power relationships based on specific statuses
and asymmetrical information;
■ using mediation tools facilitating negotiation and
leading to the creation of a common language to deal
with the given issue;
■ the existence of a facilitator-mediator, considered
legitimate by all parties concerned and who will ensure “efficiency” and “fairness” by enforcing the basic rules underlying the process”. (Levrel, H. 2007)
The application of the interdisciplinary approach is based
on the same principle as that previously mentioned concerning the creation and management of a biosphere reserve: the existence of a genuine dialogue process among
disciplines making it possible to work together on the
same issues.
This interdisciplinary approach is an asset of biosphere reserves. This asset is further strengthened by the
existence at UNESCO of numerous international scientific programmes fostering this necessary interdisciplinarity: in addition to the MAB Programme on Man and
the Biosphere, the international hydrological Programme
(IHP), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the Programme for the Management of
Social Transformations (MOST), the International Geo-
science Programme (IGCP), the International Basic Sciences Programme (IBSP). Some biosphere reserves, as in
Canada, have become a showcase for interdisciplinarity
by mobilizing researchers from these different intergovernmental programmes to work together for sustainable
development.
Interdisciplinarity and dialogue are necessary conditions for biosphere reserves to become exemplary platforms of dialogue. It is also important to establish lasting relationships among researchers and managers of the
biosphere reserve. This is the main foundation of adaptive management, which means “sharing knowledge and
power” (Levrel, op.cit.). This co-management takes into
account the diversity of stakeholders, of their points of
view, their knowledge and know-how.
Co-management reinforces ties between the spheres
of research and those of local ecosystem management
and planning. Indeed, social interactions are most intense on the local level, and this makes it possible to
launch a process of dialogue, concertation and negotiation based on stakeholders, stakeholder networks,
organizations and institutions. Co-management at that
level makes it possible to mobilize significant social resources and institutional cooperation systems, bringing
together local stakeholders to work on common issues,
as advocated by the MAB programme according to the
ecosystemic approach.
Several observations drawn from the examples and
practices described in this document deserve to be further studied and analysed in the World Network:
■ Biosphere reserves make it possible to observe the
rules of access to and use of resources among stakeholders over the long term, and facilitate exchanges
and dialogue among institutions and networks of
stakeholders for the implementation of adaptive comanagement.
■ Owing to their socioeconomic and cultural diversity,
biosphere reserves are sources of knowledge, creativity and innovation, are able to provide a wide range
of responses, and of adapting to change. Biosphere
reserves represent a permanent and dynamic source
of dialogue among stakeholders, a place where
knowledge is recognized and can be improved over
time in the context of the different events that occur
1. Managers in the widest sense of the term, as defined in chapter 1.
2. Adaptive management is a form of interactive management based on
the idea that the practice of management should be seen as belonging
to an iterative and continuous process of experimentation, based on the
cooperation of decision-makers, scientists and managers (Folke, 2003,
Olsson et al, 2004; Levrel, 2007).
3. Term created by the National Research Council, quoted by Levrel, H. 2007.
See http://www.sustainabilityscience.org
CHAPITRE 5 – The DIALOGUE within the WORLD NETWORK
Meriem Bouamrane
Chapter 5
as a result of dialogue among researchers from different
disciplines and managers1 of biosphere reserves.
63
during the life of a biosphere reserve. This sum of
experience must be shared thanks to the networks
of stakeholders and institutions.
■ Biosphere reserves foster exchanges among scientists and holders of local knowledge, thus encouraging knowledge sharing, the co-construction of common references, a common learning process and the
integration of this combined knowledge in the social
institutions in charge of managing and coordinating
the site.
■ In biosphere reserves, cooperation and dialogue are
legitimate sources of learning in order to better understand man-nature interaction, improve collective
information, improve the management of ecosystems and biodiversity, and consequently better cope
with uncertainty and change.
In order for biosphere reserves to become excellence
centres of dialogue and co-construction of collective
knowledge, the principles and values of equity and justice must evidently come first: exchange and dialogue
must be open, the access to information and the sharing
of knowledge and its uses must be reciprocal.
reserves, without which knowledge cannot be communicated and transmitted.
Exchanges and dialogue trigger interest in other
dialogue practices and cultures in the World Network.
Biosphere reserves are dynamic sources of knowledge on
the environment and the world, and it is crucial that this
knowledge be better transmitted. The World Network is
an encyclopedia of specific and local knowledge linked
to universal knowledge, in all times and all places.
UNESCO’s role, and more specifically that of the
MAB programme is to develop concrete ways and means
to record the practices of biosphere reserves, their productions, the transmission of knowledge, by comparing
approaches and calling for the participation of different
disciplines and scientific programmes, and by mobilizing the stakeholders.
In this way will the Biosphere Reserves of the World
Network earn recognition and renown as laboratories for
sustainable development.
■■■
A goal for the World Network:
communicating and transmitting
knowledge
Biosphere reserves are dynamic forums where one
can experiment and learn, communicate and transmit
knowledge.
The studies conducted in the framework of the research and training programme on dialogue and concertation (Beuret 2006a; Bouamrane, 2006, Boureima, 2007;
Deldicque, 2007; Levrel et al., 2006, Etienne, 2006),
which described the itineraries of several biosphere reserves, revealed the existence of networks of remarkable
men and women. These stakeholders initiate, pursue
and transmit actions and words, dialogue and concertation practices in various and unique contexts. Observing
and studying these practices, experiences, relationships
allows us to uncover a wide variety of ways of saying and
doing dialogue in biosphere reserves.
This note is a contribution to the recognition of the
plurality of dialogue practices and talents within the
World Network. In addition to describing the problems
met in the field by stakeholders working on the implementation of the recommendations of the Seville Strategy, thanks to specific examples, it pays tribute to the
creativity and capacity for innovation shown by stakeholders and institutions facing difficult challenges.
The concrete aspects of the approaches presented
here play an important part in the social construction of
standards, principles and social networks in biosphere
64
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Bibliography
Barbault, R. 2006. Chercheurs, gestionnaires et autres acteurs de la
biodiversité: des partenariats à construire. Bouamrane, M. (ed).
Biodiversité et acteurs. Des itinéraires de concertation. Réserves
de biosphère. Notes techniques 1. UNESCO, Paris.
Chapter 5
n
Carpenter, S.R. and C. Folke. 2006. Ecology for transformation.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Folke, C. 2003. Social-ecological resilience and behavioural
responses. Biel A., Hanson, B. Martensson, M. (eds). Individual
and structural determinants of environmental practice. Ashgate
Publishers, London: 226-242.
German Commission for UNESCO. 2006. Strengthening
cooperation between national commissions for UNESCO
and International/intergovernmental scientific programmes.
Framework Action Plan of the workshop in Berlin, 30 January1 February 2006.
Etienne, M., Le Page C., Cohen, M. 2003. Role-Playing Games,
Models and Negociation Processes : part I. A step-by-step
Approach to building Land Management Scenarios Based on
Multiple Viewpoints on Multi-agent system simulations. JASSS
(6) issue 2.
EuroMAB Austria 2005 - Meeting of the EuroMAB Biosphere
Reserve Coordinators and Managers; Proceedings, Hernstein
(Austria), 25-30 October 2005/ http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/euromab_
austria_2005inhalt?frames=yes
Levrel, H. et al. 2006. Co-construction dans six réserves de
biosphère d’Afrique de l’Ouest : à la recherche d’indicateurs
d’interactions pour gérer la biodiversité. Bouamrane, M.
(ed). Biodiversité et acteurs. Des itinéraires de concertation.
Réserves de biosphère. Notes techniques 1. UNESCO, Paris.
Levrel, H. 2007. Quels indicateurs pour la gestion de la biodiversité.
Les cahiers de l’IFB. IFB, Paris.
Olsson P., Folke C., Berkes, F. 2004. Adaptive co-management for
building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environment
management (34): 75-90.
CHAPITRE 5 – The DIALOGUE within the WORLD NETWORK
Meriem Bouamrane
65
Annex 1:
Dialogue
in the Seville Strategy
(UNESCO, 1996)
Goal II:
Utilize biosphere reserves as models of
land management and of approaches to
sustainable development
II.1:
Secure the support and involvement of local people
II.1.1.
Prepare guidelines for key aspects of biosphere reserve
management, including the resolution of conflicts, provision
of local benefits, and involvement of stakeholders in
decision-making and in responsibility for management.
II.1.4
Identify and promote the establishment of activities compatible
with the goals of conservation, through the transfer of
appropriate technologies which include traditional knowledge,
and which promote sustainable development in the buffer and
transition zones.
II.1.5.
Survey the interests of the various stakeholders and fully
involve them in planning and decision-making regarding
the management and use of the reserve.
II.2:
Ensure better harmonization and interaction among the different
biosphere reserve zones
II.2.4.
Establish a local consultative framework in which the reserve’s
economic and social stakeholders are represented, including
the full range of interests (e.g.agriculture, forestry, hunting
and extracting, water and energy supply, fisheries, tourism,
recreation, research).
Goal IV:
IV.1:
IV.1.5
66
Implement the biosphere reserve concept
Integrate the functions of biosphere reserves
Prepare guidance on management issues at biosphere reserve
sites, including, inter alia, methods to ensure local participation,
case studies of various management options and techniques of
conflict resolution.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Annex 2:
Other practices
in biosphere reserves
Chapter 1
Creation itinerary of the Cape West Coast Biosphere
Reserve (SOUTH AFRICA)
The creation of a biosphere reserve for the West Coast was
first proposed in the context of the 1995 West Coast Subregional
Structure Plan. Following a feasibility study, the provincial cabinet
approved the idea in 1996, on condition that Cape Nature Conservation and the West Coast District Council evaluate its viability.
The dialogue leading to the creation of the Cape West Coast
Biosphere Reserve was thus initiated. The different stages of the
process involved:
■ A review of the process, for the purpose of reaching a preliminary agreement on how the process was to be conducted, and to ensure that it followed the recommendations of
the provincial government, the appropriate committees and
UNESCO.
■ Communication of information through various means:
A brochure describing the biosphere reserve concept,
its main functions and advantages as well as the West
Coast Biosphere Reserve project. 14,000 brochures were
distributed and the project was posted on the website
devoted to South Africa’s environmental projects.
Information published in various newspapers, as well
as the quarterly newsletter of the West Coast District
Council.
Posters during local events.
Three editions of the “bio-bulletin” providing information for communities, and sent by mail to all the concerned stakeholders.
Letters sent to government departments on the national
and local levels.
Presentations made for various organizations.
■ Establishment of a framework: workshops were organized,
during which the problems and concerns linked to the creation of the biosphere reserve were identified. A data base
grouping together the various points of view was set up.
■ Creation of a management committee in 1998-1999:
In June 1998, the Mamre meeting elected a temporary
committee made up of members belonging to the local
community;
In July 1998, the temporary committee set up three work
groups: Management, Public Participation and Constitutional. A plan for public participation was carried
out, with information published in local and provincial
newspapers, posters, and the mailing of over 1,000 personal invitations to attend the next meeting to be held
in Darling. A management plan and a constitution were
also prepared for discussion at the Darling meeting.
In 1999, two meetings were organized in Darling. The
statutes of the management committee were approved
and eleven representatives of the different sectors were
elected: Landowners/Renters’ associations, Industry,
Local communities/NGOs/Community based organisations, local, provincial and national authorities, Agriculture, Tourism, Environment, para-state institutions.
The management committee became a non-profit organization (a Section 21 Company)
A biosphere reserve itinerary born
from a conflict: the case of the Green Belt
of Sâo Paulo (BRAZIL)
In the 1970s, a project to build a circular highway around
Sâo Paulo led to strong opposition among civil society. The opponents regrouped, especially in the north of Sâo Paulo, and several
NGOs and local leaders began to emerge. This force of opposition
became a force of proposition with the move to create a biosphere
reserve in this zone, which coincides with the green belt of São
Paulo. The opponents to the highway project wrote a petition,
signed by 150,000 people, demanding that the circular highway
project be stopped and a biosphere reserve created instead.
Three years later, the opposition movement submitted a
project for the creation of a biosphere reserve to the Forest Institute. The Institute agreed to back the project. One of the
movement’s leaders was also in charge of the Forest Institute and
served as a go-between. At the same time, another project for
a larger biosphere reserve which included São Paulo (the Mata
Atlântica project) was under way. After discussion, both projects
were maintained and linked together. The São Paulo green belt
(and the Mata Atlântica) project joined the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves in 1993. A common structure housed the operational teams of these two biosphere reserves.
In 1995, the Biosphere Reserve organized a workshop with
the stakeholders on the following issue: “What are we going to
do in the biosphere reserve, now that it has been recognized by
UNESCO?” A study group created upon completion of the workshop suggested a management system for the reserve. A council
was planned but not immediately implemented due to Sâo Paulo
State authorities’ lack of interest in the Biosphere Reserve.
In 2000, a new law on protected areas specified the category
of “biosphere reserves” and stipulated the creation of a council
in each biosphere reserve. In 2004, the council of the Biosphere
67
Reserve of the Green Belt of São Paulo was set up. One of its tasks
was to draw up the management plan.
■
■
The Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (MEXICO),
born from a local initiative
In the early 1980s, Martha Ruiz Corzo moved to the Sierra
Gorda with her husband, who was born there, and their two
children, in search of a simpler lifestyle. In order to counter the
increasing deterioration of the environment of the Sierra Gorda
(deforestation, waste), with her husband and a few friends she
created the “Ecological Group of Sierra Gorda”. In the beginning,
they carried out environmental awareness-raising campaigns
in schools and among farmers, as well as tree plantations. The
results of the awareness-raising campaigns were promising: the
inhabitants of the Sierra Gorda began to make ovens that used
less firewood, reforested mountains that had been increasingly
used as pasture land, sorted the waste, ... Martha Ruiz Corzo
then pursued her work with local and national authorities. She
launched a one-hour weekly radio programme discussing environmental problems. Under the pressure of civil society, the first
Mexican Biosphere Reserve was created in 1997 and Martha Ruiz
Corzo became its director. The biosphere reserve was designated
by UNESCO in 2001. Today, large forest areas have been restored
and wildlife is thriving (for instance, jaguar and deer populations
have increased).
The itinerary creation of the Waterberg
Biosphere Reserve (SOUTH AFRICA)
The Waterberg Biosphere Reserve was created over a period of three years (1996-1999), during which more than forty
formal meetings took place, as well as numerous informal meetings and exchanges involving all the stakeholders concerned:
political authorities on different levels (national, provincial,
local), local and native communities, nature conservation NGOs,
landowners, etc.
The creation itinerary can be divided into six stages, even
though some were conducted simultaneously.
■ Collection of information (14 months): a proposal to determine the limits of the biosphere reserve, identification of key
stakeholders, collection of bio-geographic data and socio-ecological study of the area, identification of ongoing activities
corresponding to the biosphere reserve function.
■ Setting up an educational / information programme about
the biosphere reserve concept (8 months).
■ Creation of a coordination committee of the biosphere reserve, with the participation of key actors.
■ The biosphere reserve nomination process (6 months):
finalizing legal aspects, zoning, identification of the actions
to be implemented in each of the zones (core, buffer, transition areas), obtaining the agreement of all key stakeholders
for the implementation of the biosphere reserve, as well as
their commitment to participating in its management.
68
Obtaining the support of local and provincial authorities
(2 months);
Carrying out the final proposal of the Waterberg Biosphere
Reserve (24 months): evaluation the different stages of the
creation process, using UNESCO indicators to improve the
biosphere reserve proposal, writing the designation proposal.
Men and women: perceptions and aspirations
which can be different at times and which must be
taken into account: the case of Nanda Devi (INDIA)
A survey conducted in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve
(India), by Rao et al. (2000), has shown notable differences in
the perceptions and aspirations of men and women. The answers
indicate that men are more concerned with economic opportunities, and women with living conditions.
For example, to the question: “In the Biosphere Reserve of
Nanda Devi, if nature were endangered by the lifestyle of residents living on the periphery of the core area and it were necessary to take measures to ensure its protection, would you agree
with the following proposal(s)?
■ the expropriation of farms and animals at a price higher than
the market price, so that residents could gradually change
their occupations;
■ exchanging farms for good farmland located in areas more
distant from the core area.
About two thirds of the men agreed with both proposals whereas 81% of the women were opposed to the first proposal and
62% to the second.
Revolving coordination in the Rhön
Biosphere Reserve (GERMANY)
The Rhön Biosphere Reserve was created between 1989 and
1991 and reflects the political history of Germany and the different approaches towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable
development in East and West Germany. This biosphere reserve
lies across three länder: Hesse, Bavaria (former FRG) and Thuringe
(former GDR). This historical division of the Rhön mountains
into three sovereignties has had a considerable influence on the
culture and landscape of the area. Despite these differences, the
fact that common issues and problems have arisen concerning
the management of this biogeographical area led to the creation
of this biosphere reserve.
The joint management plan does not call for the creation
of a central management unit but rather a decentralized form of
management, with units in each länder. The coordination of the
biosphere reserve is managed by each länder in turn for a term of
five years.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
The creation of a coordination committee at the Waterberg
Biosphere Reserve (SOUTH AFRICA) as a result of
dialogue
The coordination committee of the Waterberg Biosphere
Reserve was created after a participatory process of two years. It
brings together the representatives of key stakeholders participating in the management of the area. It was deliberately restricted
to few members (less than 20) in order to facilitate decision-making and the implementation of objectives (other stakeholders
participate in the different technical committees). In 1998, the
coordination committee was made up of:
■ State representatives: two representatives of the Ministry of
the Territory, of Agriculture and the Environment;
■ Local authorities: one representative of each of the four local
transition councils, one representative of the traditional
chiefs, two representatives of the villages of Bakenberg and
Koedoesrand/Rebone;
■ Representatives of project operators (e.g. the Wilderness
Trust);
■ Representatives of existing protected areas in the core area:
two representatives of the management committee of the
Masebe Natural Reserve, one representative of the Marakele
National Park;
■ Representatives of the private sector: two representatives of
a nature conservation NGO, two representatives of the agricultural sector, one representative of the tourism sector.
The creation of the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve of
Pfälzerwald/ Vosges du Nord (GERMANY/FRANCE):
moving closer together
The Transboundary Biosphere Reserve of Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord was created in 1998. Both territories had previously
cooperated in environmental protection actions. Here is a brief
history of this cooperation:
In 1985, the Parc Naturel Régional (PNR) of the Vosges du
Nord and the Verein Naturpark Pfälzerwald began to launch
joint actions: comparison of their ecosystems, construction of a
Geographic Information System, promotion of sustainable tourism, publication of brochures.
In 1989, the Vosges du Nord Regional Park became a biosphere reserve. The creation of a Franco-German Transboundary
Biosphere Reserve was already under consideration at that time:
“A recommendation has been made and supported to promote
the creation of transboundary biosphere reserves in Europe. The
Vosges du Nord Biosphere Reserve could qualify if the Palatinate
Forest Nature Park in West Germany also becomes a biosphere
reserve”, Gilbert Long, president of the MAB France committee
(Dernière Nouvelles d’Alsace, June 17, 1989).
In 1992, the Verein NaturPark Pfälzerwald (a Platinate Forest Nature Park) became part of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves; this created favourable conditions for increased collaboration.
In 1996, both biosphere reserves moved still closer with the
signature of a “memorandum of understanding” setting the goals
of a transboundary biosphere reserve. The memorandum aims to
progressively integrate the policies of both biosphere reserves,
particularly in the following realms:
■ knowledge, protection and promotion of cultural and built
heritage (thanks to a common Geographical Information
System);
■ coordinating the development of both natural parks for the
purpose of coherence;
■ natural area management;
■ the promotion of sustainable development methods, especially for agriculture and tourism;
■ the development of the eco-citizenship of local populations
and visitors, thanks to environmental awareness and education campaigns.
A coordination committee was created, made up of:
■ the presidents of the Vosges du Nord PNR and the Verein
NaturPark Pfälzerwald,
■ three delegates from each of these structures,
■ regional representatives of both countries,
■ presidents and vice-presidents of the scientific council of
the biosphere reserve, in an advisory capacity.
The setting-up of a scientific advisory committee, composed of
representatives of each biosphere reserve is planned. In 1998,
the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve Pfälzerwald/Vosges du
Nord was approved by UNESCO after a long cooperation and
dialogue itinerary.
The Wood Forum, a forum for dialogue among
stakeholders in the Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve
(SWITZERLAND)
The wood forum, launched in 2000, has become an active
association in the biosphere reserve, bringing together over one
hundred local stakeholders involved in the “wood” resource cycle: forest landowners, farmers, companies, municipalities, ...
The aim is to promote the sustainable use of wood as a construction material or source of energy.
The creation of an intercommunal structure as an outcome
of dialogue in the Cévennes Biosphere Reserve
(FRANCE)
The Cévennes Biosphere Reserve was created in 1984 on
the basis of the Cévennes National Park. This creation went unnoticed by local stakeholders, in particular the local population,
due to the absence of dialogue. In 1991, the management structure of the Biosphere Reserve (National Park agents) proposed
to five communes (municipalities) of the Vallée du Galeizon, a
small river basin on the edge of the biosphere reserve, to begin a
discussion concerning the future of this area, which has a strong
cultural identity. For the management structure, the Vallée du
69
Galeizon represents a pilot site “for the implementation of the
principles of the MAB programme”. The local representatives decided to seize this opportunity to instill new dynamism into their
territory, insisting on the fact that the project must lead to a programme of concrete activities and on the necessity of a participatory approach. The dialogue process then began with several
public meetings and the creation of four work groups (agriculture
and forestry, tourism and heritage, architecture and landscape,
jobs and services) bringing together elected representatives of the
five communes, the associations of the valley and the representatives of the main administrations or organizations concerned.
Supplementary studies were also conducted thanks to funding
from the Ministry of the Environment and the MAB France committee. These two years of concertation led to the elaboration
of an “action plan for the conservation and development of the
Vallée du Galeizon”. The three main orientations of the plan are
the preservation and development of the life of the communes,
improved area management, and promotion of natural resources
and heritage. The elected representatives’ determination to implement this plan concretely led to the creation of an intercommunal
structure, the “Syndicat Intercommunal pour l’Aménagement et la
Conservation de la Vallée de Galeizon (SIACVG)” (Intercommunal syndicate for the planning and conservation of the Galeizon
Valley”), with the technical support of the management structure
of the Cévennes Biosphere Reserve.
CHAPTER 2
The search for “mixed” forestry technologies in
the Manicouagan-Uapishka Biosphere Reserve
(CANADA)
A good example of a conservation/development link which
can serve as a basis for dialogue is the collaboration of this biosphere reserve with a forestry company to conduct research on
technologies ensuring economic profitability while limiting negative impacts on landscape.
The attribution of forest concessions to
local communities or businesses in the
Maya Biosphere Reserve (GUATEMALA)
At the time of the creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve
in 1990, the local communities living in the forest organized the
Association of Forest Communities of Peten (AFOCOP) in order
to defend their interests. After a negotiation process that lasted
several years, the first forest concessions were granted them in
1994, and given the positive results, the process was given additional impetus as of 1997.
Today, most of the buffer zone is managed in the framework
of these concessions, granted to 14 communities and two businesses (for a duration of 20 years). The grantees must ensure the
70
maintenance of the external limit of the plot, prevent the invasion of the concession by groups searching for land, and ensure
control and surveillance as concerns forest fires, illicit firewood
gathering, poaching and the deterioration of resources.
Furthermore, the concessions are certified by an independent international body on the basis of their respect for sustainable
forestry practices.
This institutional rearrangement has fostered a better conservation of the forest environment, thanks to the participation
of the local communities.
The “snowball effect” of dialogue in the Lac Saint-Pierre
Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
Since the 1980s, and even more so with the creation of the
biosphere reserve in 2000, dialogue has become an important
part in the launching of initiatives and projects within the site of
the Lac Saint-Pierre. People have understood that “talking to each
other leads to wonderful things”1. Given the biosphere reserve’s
significant role in the creation of this “environment of dialogue”2,
it has become a central interlocutor for all the other stakeholders
of the site. For example, it was consulted on a project to enlarge
the port and on a dredging project, by the projects’ advocates
themselves and on their initiative. Dialogue made it possible to
establish a climate of trust within the biosphere reserve.
1 et 2. Normand Garriepy
The “eco-training” programme in the Green Belt
of São Paulo Biosphere Reserve: support for the
birth of local initiatives (BRAZIL)
In 1994, a programme to train young people for activities
linked to sustainable development was initiated in the São Paulo
Biosphere Reserve. Having begun with a pilot project conducted
in San Roque in 1996, the programme now has twelve eco-training centres coordinated by a biosphere reserve agent. These
centres are located in poor neighbourhoods of the participating
cities and provide an opportunity for young people to develop a
competence in the field of sustainable development. The training
programme, which lasts two years, covers many themes: ecotourism, environmental education, ecological agriculture, waste management, etc. The training curriculum takes place in four stages:
■ ten weeks of general training involving classes, workshops,
exchanges;
■ a project designed to make the trainee apply the knowledge
and competence learned;
■ at this point, the newly trained young person becomes a
trainer for the next class and for a varied public;
■ Finally, the trainee is put in charge of coordinating projects.
This pedagogical approach is user-friendly; it encourages selfreliance and a sense of responsibility and thus gives the young
trainees confidence in themselves and in their abilities.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Other organisations were then created in order to enable
the trainees to turn their “eco-training” into “eco-jobs”. Thus,
for example, the eco-training centre of Santos created an NGO,
jointly managed by the trainees and by technicians, which aims
to develop projects requiring eco-jobs or facilitating the emergence of such jobs. Training programmes for business creation
and management are also provided in the biosphere reserve: an
eco-tourism agency was set up by young people trained in an
eco-training centre in San Bernardo.
Conservation through the sustainable development
of local communities in the Dana Biosphere Reserve
(JORDAN)
This biosphere reserve is home to several hundred persons
belonging to sedentary or nomad groups that are partially or entirely dependent on the resources of the area, in particular sheep
and goat pastures.
In order to ensure both the conservation of biodiversity (by
limiting overpasturing) and the improvement of the living conditions of the local communities, the management structure of the
Dana Biosphere Reserve, the NGO Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) has thus worked (thanks to a project
financed by the GEF) in collaboration with various stakeholders
(local communities, public services, tourism sector, scientists,
...) on the creation of income through the alternative and sustainable use of resources and space: production and marketing of
dried fruit, culture of medicinal plants, arts and crafts.
A geographic brand name “Wadi Dana” was also created.
Its slogan: “help nature, help the population” reflects the wish
to integrate the conservation and sustainable development functions of the biosphere reserve.
These different forms of cooperation with local communities
have led to a more positive perception of the biosphere reserve
on their part.
The Lapalala school of nature, an environmental
education centre in the Waterberg Biosphere
Reserve (SOUTH AFRICA)
The school was set up by the Wilderness Trust and aims
to develop awareness and knowledge of the natural environment
and biodiversity, as well as of the relations between our lifestyles
(social, political and economic environment) and natural milieu
(biophysical environment). Numerous activities are proposed,
such as nature interpretation walks, studies of water, land erosion, discovery of the lifestyles of the Pedi and San people, wildlife observation sessions, ... Since 1985, 3,000 children have attended these courses.
The “ecological schools” of the Pfälzerwald Biosphere
Reserve (GERMANY)
In the Pfälzerwald Biosphere reserve, several schools (Bad,
Landau, Dürkheim) were given the “ecological school” label, due
to the significant efforts made to teach ecological notions and
respect for the environment.
The transboundary farmer markets organized by the
Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord Biosphere Reserve
(GERMANY/FRANCE)
Since 1999, the Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord Biosphere
Reserve has organized markets where both French and German
producers can sell their products. The aim of these markets is to
promote authentic fresh food products, made in a quality environment, in an artisanal fashion and respecting the environment.
Environmental education and awareness-raising activities
in the Rhön Biosphere Reserve (GERMANY)
Efforts have focused on the local population and on tourists,
with a communication policy associating historical, landscape,
cultural and ecological aspects, along with local identity: the aim
is to “fuel enthusiasm for the future of rural areas”. A work group
bringing together members from the three Länder belonging to
the biosphere reserve was set up in 1994, in order to coordinate
environmental education projects and organize joint operations.
The means available to achieve these projects vary. In the
Bavarian part, for example, environmental education was entrusted to an association and the cost is shared between the Länder
and the local authorities.
Numerous activities are offered, such as aromatic plant discovery walks, local history discovery itineraries, fruit tree pruning
races, bat observation sessions, visits of sheep farms.
The identification of eco-functional zones in six biosphere
reserves of WEST AFRICA
In the framework of the UNESCO-MAB/UNEP-GEF programme on “Building Scientific and Technical Capacity for Effective Management and Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity
in West African Biosphere Reserves”, a project to identify ecofunctional areas was carried out in six biosphere reserves of West
Africa. The eco-functional network is by definition “a group of
villages and plots of land whose relations are governed by the
existence of common natural resources (pastoral, agricultural,
hunting and fishing).”
The eco-functional network approach is rooted in the assumption that the management of a natural resource based on
the common interest of the stakeholders and villages ensures
the viability of this resource, and better still its “appropriation”
by the local communities. In addition, this makes it possible to
gather information on “homogenous” areas where development
and management rules are established on consensus, taking into
71
account basic territorial rationales and the requirements of current legislation”.
Using legislation to encourage the participation of
powerful economic stakeholders in dialogue:
the case of the Manicouagan-Uapishka
Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
Contacts with the forestry industries were established on the
basis of existing legal regulations, whereby forestry enterprises
must respond to the concerns raised by a group of citizens. The
coordinators of the biosphere reserve used this avenue to raise
the issue of landscape, and then offered to collaborate. Using
a legal framework can indeed encourage stakeholders to accept
dialogue.
A participatory project for the conservation and
rehabilitation of the tropical forest of the
Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve (CHINA)
A conservation project for the tropical forest of the Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve was implemented with the support
of the German governmental agency GTZ (Technical Cooperation for Development). One of this project’s main objectives is
the planning of land use for local communities. This planning
should make it possible to improve understanding of sustainable
resource use, help clarify long-term natural resource management
objectives and facilitate the sustainable use of natural resources
on the scale of the village. This process took place in several
stages:
■ Analysis of the present situation of the village, definition of
expectations in terms of development.
■ Drawing up of a development plan and application procedures.
■ Identification of necessary inputs.
■ Determining present state of resources, advantages, technical capacity, human resources and how much external aid is
needed.
■ Linking up planned activities with objectives, within the
specific context of the village.
Another objective is to reinforce the organization of village
committees, in order to facilitate communication between villagers concerning rules for the use and management of natural
resources. Other phases also aim to help villagers improve their
living and working conditions and help them set up participatory
biodiversity monitoring.
The implementation of a monitoring and evaluation
system in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Biosphere
Reserve (COLOMBIA)
A monitoring and evaluation system was implemented in
the framework of the Sierra Nevada Learning and Innovation for
Sustainable Development Project, conducted by the NGO Fundacion Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Thanks to this system,
72
the NGO and local communities are able to assess the present
situation and redirect their actions if necessary. According to the
NGO, “the participatory process for sustainable development
enables the communities to monitor changes that have occurred
on their land thanks to agreements, and to evaluate the impact of
these changes on their organization and structures”.
Sustainable management thanks to the recognition of
community rights in the Nanda Devi Biosphere
Reserve (INDIA)
In Bundyar, a village of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve,
trekking activities and the numerous Hindu pilgrims who come
to Nanda Devi exert a great deal of pressure on the natural environment: each year, 500,000 people cross the village using the
only existing pathway. Taxes are levied on associated services
(housing, shops, mule rentals), but the money goes to a higher
management level and is not reinvested in the area. As a result
the site is poorly maintained.
In 2003, a negotiation process promoted by the management
structure of the biosphere reserve led to the redistribution of these
taxes to the eco-development committee (EDC), a community
organization representing the 84 families of Bundyar (10% are
paid to the district). The recognition of community rights and the
sharing of profits stemming from tourist activities will thus trigger
local momentum. The EDC has launched several actions:
■ The cleaning of the site and setting up of a waste collection
system employing 46 persons;
■ The implementation of ecotaxes for service providers;
■ The creation of an insurance service for path users;
■ The creation of an interpretation centre employing young
people from the village.
Profits from tourism made it possible to launch actions benefiting the local community: financial aid for the school, purchase
of medicine, loans.
The EDC of Bundyar received the “first prize for community
institutions” at the Uttaranchal State Forestry Awards in 2004.
The institutional reorganization carried out thanks to the
renegotiation of the tax collection system enabled the local community to manage the site, draw benefits, and take responsibility
for the site.
A label of geographical origin in the Bañados del Este
Biosphere Reserve (URUGUAY)
In the Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve, brochures are being distributed to promote certain products bearing the label “productos Bañados del Este”. This eco-labeling initiative highlights,
among others, the recognition of the territory as a biosphere reserve, the involvement of local populations in the production and
marketing of products and services, as well as production practices in compliance with the sustainable use of resources.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Chapter 3
The construction of an agreement for a common position
within the council of the São Paulo Green Belt
Biosphere Reserve (BRAZIL)
The Green Belt of the São Paulo Biosphere Reserve was created on the basis of the opposition movement to the construction of a belt highway around São Paulo. However, in 1997 (four
years after the creation of the biosphere reserve), the western segment was built anyway.
In 1998, the Environmental Council of the State of São Paulo – whose opinion is decisive–consulted with the management
structure of the biosphere reserve about the construction of the
three other parts of the project. Since no collective formal body
existed within the biosphere reserve, a provisional council was
created. The project was met with considerable disapproval by
the nine members of the council.
In 2001, the state nevertheless began to plan the construction of the last three segments. A consultation was initiated with
the Forest Institute, which also disapproved of the project, mentioning in particular the existence of the biosphere reserve. Due
to this disapproval and to the pressure of civil society, the project
was abandoned.
In 2004, the biosphere reserve was consulted once again.
This time, there was a biosphere reserve council representing a
wide range of stakeholders (NGOs, industrial sector, etc.) with
diverging opinions concerning the project. A work group made
up of fifteen persons was then created. The scientific secretary of
the biosphere reserve led the process and acted as mediator.
The dialogue took place in several stages:
■ Acquisition of a common culture in order to lead the group
to the same level of knowledge. Government and civil society experts were mobilized and the mediator acted as “translator”. The process was facilitated by the fact that the participants were all literate and used to using the same action
formats.
■ Triggering the dialogue, beginning with a statement of the
existence of the conflict among stakeholders. The next step
was to obtain the stakeholders’ willingness to participate in
the process of finding an agreement and establishing a preliminary agreement to frame the debate by limiting the range
of possible decisions.
■ A common analysis of the problem thanks to field trips and
debate phases.
■ Construction of a single proposal around the notion of what
is “acceptable by all parties”. An initial proposal was drawn
up by the president of the biosphere reserve to serve as a
basis for dialogue. The debates then provided an opportunity to amend the proposal. It was during this stage that
the mediator’s role was most difficult: as the agreement
progressed, external pressures increased and there was the
risk that some parties — the representatives of the sectors favourable to the project— might withdraw from the process.
The final document, which still retained some points of disagreement (underlined as such) was finally signed by all the parties.
...
73
The itinerary of conflict management between sport fishing and commercial fishing
in the Lac Saint-Pierre Biosphere Reserve (CANADA)
The decrease in the yellow perch population, a fish species emblematic of the Lac SaintPierre, has triggered a conflict between sport fishermen and commercial fishermen. A work
group representing the different parties in conflict was set up on the initiative of the Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries (which supports commercial fishing) and the Ministry of Fauna
(which supports sport fishing), in the following way:
A “political” committee:
Commercial fishing represented by:
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
An association representing the “commercial” fishermen
A food industry
Mediation performed by:
A general non specialist
mediator and the
mediator of the scientific
committee
Sport fishing represented by:
The Ministry of Fauna
An association representing the “sport” fishermen
A provider of services offering leisure fishing activities
to tourists
A scientific committee:
Commercial fishing represented by:
Mediation performed by:
Sport fishing represented by:
Scientists from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
A scientific mediator,
a known specialist
Scientists from the Ministry of Fauna
Step 1:
a preliminary agreement sets the range of possible settlements, excluding
extreme solutions.
Step 2:
the “political” committee requests information from the scientific committee.
Step 3:
the general mediator has an interview with each of the parties in order to prepare
the dialogue.
Step 4:
the negotiation phase, when the mediator played a role:
■
by reformulating what was said in terms understandable to all (e.g.: the
decrease in the fish population mentioned by a fisherman means a loss of
income),
■
by understanding the stakeholders’ strategies and fighting strategies that
aim to disrupt the process on the part of those who are strongly opposed to
negotiation,
■
by refocusing the debate on what was at stake,
■
by facilitating the search for a win-win solution, which benefits both
parties.
Step 5:
the mediator thus mediated the debate in order to unblock the situation: “I
write a report in which I show the elements of consensus and those that cause
disagreement, and I give my recommendations to the minister”.
Step 6:
recognition of the report by the concertation table of the elected officials of the
Lac Saint-Pierre.
Finally, the government made a decision in accord with the recommendations of the mediator,
following negotiations among stakeholders and approval by local public authorities.
74
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
showfile.aspx?a=tblFiles&b=FileID&c=FileName&d=TheFile&e=465
Bandura, A. 1995. L’apprentissage social. Editions Mardaga, Bruxelles.
Barret, P. 2003. Guide pratique du dialogue territorial : Concertation
et médiation pour l’environnement et le développement local.
Fondation de France. Coll. Pratiques. 136 pp.
Barrière, O. 2003. Gestion de l’environnement en pays Bassari
(Sénégal oriental) ; réflexion sur un droit de l’environnement au
Sénégal. Revue Canadienne Droit et Société / Canadian Journal of
Law and Society, 18 (1) : 73-101.
Barbault, R. 2003. La biologie de la conservation dans les réserves de
biosphère. La lettre de la biosphère (66):1-2. MAB France.
http://www.MAB-france.org/
Barbault, R. 2006. Chercheurs, gestionnaires et autres acteurs de la
biodiversité: des partenariats à construire. Bouamrane, M. (ed).
Biodiversité et acteurs. Des itinéraires de concertation. Réserves de
biosphère. Notes techniques 1. UNESCO, Paris.
Barouch, G. 1989. La décision en miettes : systèmes de pensée et d’action
à l’œuvre dans la gestion des milieux naturels. L’Harmattan, Paris.
237 pp.
Blondiaux, L. 2004. Prendre au sérieux l’idéal délibératif : un
programme de recherche. Swiss Political Science, 10 (4) : 147210. http://www.chaire-mcd.ca
Beuret, J-E. 2006 a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère. Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques. UNESCO-MAB.
Beuret, J-E. 2006 b). La conduite de la concertation pour la gestion de
l’environnement et le partage des ressources. L’Harmattan, Paris.
340 pp.
Beuret, J-E., Dufourmantelle, N., Beltrando, V. 2006 c). L’évaluation
des processus de concertation : RELIEF, une démarche, des outils. La
documentation Française. Réponses environnement. 145 pp.
Bioret, F. et al. 1995. Méthode d’élaboration de guides d’aide à la
gestion pour les réserves de biosphère : application aux réserves
de biosphère françaises. Dossier MAB 19. Unesco, Paris.
Bishop, J. 2005. Creating an “infrastructure for engagement”:
from why to how. BDOR Ltd and InterAct Networks.
http://www.interactnetworks.co.uk
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., and Oviedo, G. 2004. Indigenous
and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity
and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK, xvii + 111 pp. http://app.iucn.org
Bouamrane, M. (ed.). 2006. Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation
itineraries. Technical Notes 1. UNESCO, Paris.
http://www.unesco.org/MAB/pub.shtml
Boureima, A. 2007. Rapport de travail sur les zones éco-fonctionnelles
de la Réserve de biosphère de la Pendjari. Programme
« Renforcement des capacités scientifiques et techniques pour
une gestion efficace et une utilisation durable de la diversité
biologique dans les réserves de biosphère des zones arides et
semi-arides d’Afrique de l’Ouest », UNESCO/MAB – UNEP/GEF.
http://www.unesco.org/mab/project/savannas/doc_fr.shtml
Brodhag, C. 2004. Glossaire pour le développement durable. Agora
21. Ecole des Mines, Saint Etienne. http://www.ecologie.gouv.
Cibien, C. 2006. Les réserves de biosphère : des lieux de collaboration
entre chercheurs et gestionnaires en faveur de la biodiversité.
Natures, Sciences, Sociétés 14 : 84-90.
Selective bibliography
Agossou, V., Baltissen, G., Béavoqui, L. 1999. Participation villageoise
au développement rural : Manuel du praticien. Institut Royal des
Tropiques, 84 pp. http://www.kit.nl/net/KIT_Publicaties_output/
Cibien, C. 2007. Un examen périodique des réserves de biosphère,
pour quoi faire ? La lettre de la biosphère. N. 7 Juillet 2007.
Comité MAB France.
David, A. 2000. La recherche intervention, cadre général pour la
recherche en management? Les nouvelles fonctions des sciences
de gestion, Vuibert : 193-213.
Deldicque, M. 2007. Elaboration d’un guide méthodologique - Le
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère : repères, pratiques
et expériences. Mémoire de fin d’études pour l’obtention
du Diplôme d’Agronomie Approfondie (DAA) Génie de
l’Environnement – Option « Systèmes de Production et
Développement Rural. UNESCO-MAB et ENSAR.
Etienne, M. 2006. La modélisation d’accompagnement : un outil
de dialogue et de concertation dans les réserves de biosphère.
Bouamrane, M. (ed). Biodiversité et acteurs : des itinéraires
de concertation. Réserves de biosphère, Notes techniques 1.
UNESCO, Paris. http://www.unesco.org/MAB/pub.shtml
European Commission. 2003. Common implementation Strategy
for the Water Framework Directive. (200/60/EC). Guidance
on Public Participation in relation to the Water Framework
Directive. Guidance Document n. 8.
FAO . 2000. Egalité des chances et sécurité alimentaire : le rôle de
l’information. Stratégie d’action, Division de l’information.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4745f/x4745f00.HTM
Génot, J.C. et Barbault, R. 2004. Quelle politique de conservation ?
Biodiversité et changements globaux. ADPF. pp. 162 -191
German MAB National Committee. (ed.). 2003. Full of Life. UNESCO
Biosphere Reserves – Model Regions for Sustainable Development.
Springer, Bonn.
GTZ. 2003. Exploiter pour conserver : Comment les animaux
d’élevage et plantes cultivées délaissés constituent un potentiel
économique pour le développement rural.
http://www2.gtz.de/agrobiodiv/download/ncb-franz.pdf
Hatchuel, A. 2005. Pour une épistémologie de l’action, l’expérience
des sciences de gestion. Teulier, R. et Lorino P (éditeurs
scientifiques). Entre connaissance et organisation : l’activité
collective. Colloque de Cérisy, La Découverte, Paris. pp. 72-92.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau,
J. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.
http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/
Jardin, M. 1996. Les réserves de biosphère se dotent d’un statut
international: enjeux et perspectives. Revue juridique de
l’environnement. 4: 375-385. CNRS, Paris.
Jones, P.S.; Young, J.; Watt, A.D. (eds.). 2005. Biodiversity conflict
management: a report of the BIOFORUM project. 76 pp.
http://www.nbu.ac.uk/bioforum/
Kaufman S. 2006. Une taxonomie des dispositifs de décisions et
délibérations publiques. Processus et dispositifs d’intervention
dans les décisions publiques aux Etats-Unis. Revue Négociations.
Dossier Négociations et médiation : perspectives croisées
n° 2006 (2) : 34-30.
fr/Glossaire-du-developpement-durable.html
75
Lass, W., Reusswig, F (eds.). 2002. Social Monitoring: Meaning and
Methods for an Integrated Management in Biosphere Reserves.
Report of an International Workshop, Rome, 2-3 September
2001. Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring (BRIM), Series
n°1, UNESCO, Paris.
Lascoumes, P. 2005. Le développement durable: vecteur d’innovations
politiques ? Le développement durable, les termes du débat.
Armand Colin. pp. 1-6.
Latour, B. 2005. Il faut repenser l’écologie politique. Les enjeux
sociaux de l’environnement, Sciences Humaines, Hors-série n° 49,
Juillet-août 2005, pp. 92-93.
Möller, L. (ed.). 2007. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves : Model Regions
with a global reputation. UNESCO Today, Journal of the German
Commission for UNESCO (2), German Commission for
UNESCO.
Mormont, M., Mougenot, C., Dasnoy, C. 2006. La participation,
composante du développement durable: quatre études de cas.
VertigO 7 (2). http://www.vertigo.uquam.ca
Price, M. (ed.). 2000. EuroMAB 2000. Proceedings of the First Joint
Meeting of EuroMAB National Committees and Biosphere
Reserve Coordinators. 10-14 April 2000. Cambridge, UK.
Rao. K. S., Nautiyal S., Maikhuri R.K., Saxena K.G. 2000.
Management conflicts in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve,
India, Mountain Research and Development, 20 (4): 320-323.
Secrétariat de la Convention sur la diversité biologique. 2004.
Approche Par Ecosystème (Lignes Directrices de la CDB).
Montréal. 51 p. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ea-text-fr.pdf
Smouts M.C. 2005. Le développement durable : valeurs et pratiques.
Le développement durable, les termes du débat. Armand Colin :
1-6.
Sourd, C. 2004. Explique-moi les réserves de biosphère. Coll. A la
découverte du monde. UNESCO/Nouvelle Arche de Noé
Editions.
Thévenot, L. 2006. Trois familles de modèle d’action. L’action au pluriel,
Sociologie des régimes d’engagement. La Découverte : 8-11.
UNESCO. 1995. Promouvoir la libre circulation de l’information et le
développement de la communication. Stratégie à moyen terme
1996-2001 adoptée par la Conférence générale, XXVIIIème
session.
UNESCO. 1996. Réserves de biosphère : la Stratégie de Séville et le
Cadre statutaire du Réseau mondial. UNESCO, Paris.
http://www.unesco.org/MAB
UNESCO. 2000. La solution du puzzle : l’approche écosystémique et
les réserves de biosphère. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2000a). Information on the results of the survey on the
implementation of the Seville Strategy. Sixteenth Session of
the International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the
Biosphere Programme. UNESCO Paris 6-10 November 2000.
SC-OO/CONF.208/3 add.
UNESCO. 2001. Des outils et des hommes pour une gestion intégrée
des zones côtières. Guide méthodologique. Manuels et guides de
la Commission Océanographique Intergouvernementale. N. 42.
Unesco, Paris.
UNESCO. 2001a). Seville + 5. International meeting of experts.
Compte rendus. Pamplona, Spain. 23-27 October 2000. MAB
Report Series N. 69. UNESCO, Paris.
76
UNESCO. 2001b). Sixteenth Session of the International
Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the
Biosphere. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 6-10 November 2000.
Final report.
UNESCO. 2002. First EuroMAB Training workshop on Conflict
Management in Biosphere Reserves. Réserve de biosphère des
Vosges du Nord, France, 3-8 septembre 2002. Rapport final.
Unesco, Paris.
UNESCO. 2002a). Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and
nature. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2004. Dialogue entre les civilisations. Le nouveau Courrier.
Janvier 2004. Numéro spécial. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2005. Réserves de biosphère – Avantages et opportunités.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001424/142453f.pdf
UNESCO. 2005a). Rapport du Bureau du Conseil International de
co-ordination. Paris, 27-29 Juin 2005.
UNESCO. 2007. Rapport du Bureau du Conseil International de Coordination. Paris, 18-20 Septembre 2007.
Indicative list of related websites
http://www.genreenaction.net/ - Information and resource gateway of
the French-speaking network “Genre en Action” [”Gender in
Action”]. The network provides information, offers training
programmes and a forum on the “gender and development”
approach for all persons involved in development issues in the
North and the South.
http://www.chaire-mcd.ca/ - Website of the Canada Research Chair on
Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. The Chair studies
the mutations of the different institutional spheres of modern
societies and the emergence of new forms of citizenship,
political community, democracy and social justice.
http://www.enbi.info/forums/enbi/index.php - Website of the European
Network of Information on Biodiversity (ENBI).
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/ - Website of the Institute for
Research and Debate on Governance (IRG).
http://www.interactweb.org.uk/ - InterAct is an alliance of experienced
practitioners, researchers, writers and policy makers committed
to putting participatory, deliberative and co-operative
approaches at the heart of debate, decision-making and action
across the UK.
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/ - Website of the IUCN (World
Conservation Union) Commission on Environmental, Economic
and Social Policies (CEESP): see in particular the Themes on
Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas
(TILCEPA) and on Governance, Equity and Rights (TGER).
http://www.ivry.inra.fr/tsv/ - Website of the «Social and Political
Transformations Related to Life Sciences and Life Forms» of the
French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA).
http://www.c3ed.uvsq.fr/gecorev/ - Website of the colloquium on the
“co-management of natural resources and the environment, from
the local to the global sphere”: to reinforce dialogue between
researchers, civil society and decision-makers.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
and MEDIation for the Environment and local development»
(COMEDIE) whose aim is to support local concertation or
mediation initiatives in the field of the environment, local
development and area management, in order to increase their
efficiency and spread a culture of dialogue.
http://www.parcs-naturels-regionaux.fr/concertation_za/ - Website of the
on-line guide on «Concertation – Action among enterprises and
local authorities» of the federation of regional natural parks.
http://www.nbu.ac.uk/bioforum/ - Website of the Bioforum project on
the management of conflicts between biodiversity conservation
and economic development.
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ - Website of the Aarhus Convention on
access to information, public participation in decision-making
processes and access to justice in matters of environment in
Europe.
http://cormas.cirad/fr - CORMAS/CIRAD is devoted to the modelling
of relations between societies and their environment. The
site presents of the multi-agent systems (SMA) approach,
which uses simulation tools for the study of the dynamics of
interactions between resources and societies together with
role-playing games. Cormas develops modeling tools making
it possible to simulate interactions on several scales, and offers
methodological discussions on the use of these tools.
Indicative list of handbooks
on the participation of stakeholders
in natural resource and
land management
Agossou, V., Baltissen, G., Béavoqui, L. 1999. Participation villageoise
au développement rural : Manuel du praticien, Institut Royal
des Tropiques, 84 pp. Disponible sur : http://www.kit.nl/net/
KIT_Publicaties_output/showfile.aspx?a=tblFiles&b=FileID&c=FileNam
e&d=TheFile&e=465
Barret, P. 2003. Guide pratique du dialogue territorial : Concertation
et médiation pour l’environnement et le développement local,
Fondation de France, Coll. Pratiques, 136 pp.
Beltrán, J. (ed.). 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and
Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWF International,
Gland, Switzerland. xi + 133pp.
http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-004.pdf
Beuret, J-E., Dufourmantelle, N., Beltrando, V. 2006c). L’évaluation
des processus de concertation : RELIEF, une démarche, des
outils. La documentation Française, Réponses environnement,
145 pp.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. 2004. Indigenous
and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity
and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. xviii + 111pp.
http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-011.pdf
FAO. 1997. Participation in practice : Lessons from the FAO People’s
Participation Programme.
http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0044.htm
Hocking, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating
Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of
Protected Areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. x + 121pp.
http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-014.pdf
Selective bibliography
http://www.comedie.org/ - Website of the programme on « Concertation
Mouterde, F. (sous la direction de). 2005. Guide du débat citoyen.
La Documentation Française, Paris, Service d’Information du
Gouvernement.
Ridder D., Mostert E., Wolters. H. A. (eds.) 2005. Apprendre
ensemble pour gérer ensemble : améliorer la participation à la
gestion de l’eau, HarmoniCOP, 111 pp.
http://www.harmonicop.uos.de/handbook.php
Sources and references of the textboxes
on biosphere reserves
W Region (Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)
Nomination Form W Biosphere Reserve (2002)
Boureima, A. 2007. Rapport de travail sur les zones éco-fonctionnelles
de la Réserve de biosphère du W. Programme « Renforcement
des capacités scientifiques et techniques pour une gestion
efficace et une utilisation durable de la diversité biologique
dans les réserves de biosphère des zones arides et semi-arides
d’Afrique de l’Ouest », UNESCO/MAB – UNEP/GEF.
http://www.unesco.org/mab/project/savannas/doc_fr.shtml
São Paulo Green Belt (Brazil)
Nomination Form São Paulo Green Belt Biosphere Reserve (2002)
Beuret, J-E. 2006 a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère, Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
http://www.iflorestal.sp.gov.br/rbcv/index.asp
Georgian Bay Littoral (Canada)
Nomination Form Georgian Bay Littoral Biosphere Reserve (2004)
Association canadienne des réserves de la biosphère (ACRB). 2005.
Réserves de la biosphère au Canada. Bulletin n° 17, janvier 2005.
http://www.biosphere-research.ca/
http://www.georgianbay.ca/
Lac Saint-Pierre (Canada)
Beuret, J-E. 2006. a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère, Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
http://www.lacsaintpierre.com/index.html
http://www.biosphere-research.ca/
http://www.biosphere-canada.ca/reserves/lac_saint-pierre/default.asp
Long Point (Canada)
Periodic review: Long Point Biosphere Reserve (2001)
Whitelaw, G., Craig, B., Jamieson, G. and Hamel, B. 2004. Research,
Monitoring and Education: Assessing the “logistics function” of
four Canadian Biosphere Reserves. Biosphere Reserve in Canada:
Exploring ideals and experiences. Environments: a journal of
interdisciplinary studies, 32 (3).
http://www.biosphere-canada.ca/reserves/long_point/default.asp
http://www.biosphere-research.ca/
77
Manicouagan-Uapishka (Canada)
Nomination Form Manicouagan-Uapishka Biosphere Reserve (2007)
Beuret, J-E. 2006a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère. Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
http://www.biosphere-research.ca/
http://www.biosphere-canada.ca/
South West Nova (Canada)
Beuret, J-E. 2006a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère. Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
http://www.biosphere-research.ca/
http://www.biosphere-canada.ca/
http://www.biosphere-canada.ca/reserves/southwest_nova/default.asp
Fanjingshan (China)
Periodic review: Fanjingshan Biosphere Reserve (2000)
Xishuangbanna (China)
Periodic review: Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve (2004)
EuroMAB. 1988. Local Involvement and Economic Dimensions in
Biosphere Reserve Activities. Proceedings of the 3rd EuroMAB
Biosphere Reserve Coordinators Meeting. Ilomantsi and Nagu,
Finland, 31 August-5 September 1998. 365 p.
http://www.mab-france.org/
Mont Ventoux (France)
Interviews with M. Ken Reyna, Coordinator of Mont Ventoux
Biosphere Reserve and M. Nicolas Bondil, PhD candidate at
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS).
http://www.mab-france.org/
Rhön (Germany)
Periodic review: Rhön Biosphere Reserve (2004)
Nauber, J. and Pokorny, D. 1991. Establishment of biosphere reserves
in Germany: a case study of the Rhön biosphere reserve.
UNESCO. 2001. Enquête sur les mécanismes institutionnels.
UNESCO. 1999. The Rhön Biosphere Reserve – from planning to
realization. UNESCO Workshop in Malaga / Sierra de las Nieves,
16-20 June 1999.
Zhaolu, W., Xiaokun, O. 1995. The Xishuangbanna biosphere
reserve : a tropical land of natural and cultural diversity.
Working papers n° 2. South – South cooperation programme
on environmentally sound socio-economic development in the
humid tropics.
Pokorny, D. 1995. The Rhön Biosphere Reserve: Biosphere Reserve
Management for Sustainable Development. UNESCO,
International Conference on Biosphere Reserves. Commission
B : Biosphere Reserve Management, Sevilla, 20-25 March 1995.
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Colombia)
Pfälzerwald/Vosges du Nord (Germany/France)
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: special places for people and
nature. UNESCO, Paris.
Nomination Form Pfälzerwald Biosphere Reserve (1998)
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
Tribin et al. 1999. The Biosphere Reserve of Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta Colombia. Working Paper n° 30. UNESCO, South-South
Co-operation Programme, Paris.
Periodic review: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Biosphere Reserve
(2001).
http://www.prosierra.org/
Seaflower (Colombia)
Protocole d’accord en vue de la création de la Réserve de biosphère
Vosges du Nord – Pfälzerwald (1996).
http://www.biosphere-vosges-pfaelzerwald.org
Oberlausitetzer Heide – und Teichlandschaft (Germany)
Periodic review (2007)
Maya (Guatemala)
Beuret, J-E. 2006 a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère, Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
http://www.conap.gob.gt/
Nomination Form Seaflower Biosphere Reserve (1998)
Howard, M. W. 1997. Report on Biosphere Reserve Environmental
Education Course, CORALINA.
Howard, M. W. 1997. Report on Community Educational Workshop,
CORALINA.
CORALINA. 1999. Acitivitades con la comunidad del proyecto:
levantamiemto de estudios y acciones para la conformacion de la
Reserva de biosfera en el archipielago.
UNESCO. 2001. Enquête sur les mécanismes institutionnels.
Camargue (delta du Rhône) (France)
Periodic review (2006)
Etienne M. et collectif ComMOD. 2005. La modélisation comme outil
d’accompagnement. Natures, Science, Sociétés 16 (2).
Cévennes (France)
SIACVG. 1992. Plan d’action pour la conservation et le
développement de la vallée du Galeizon. Juillet 1992. Syndicat
intercommunal pour l’aménagement et la conservation de la
vallée du Galeizon (SIACVG).
78
http://www.biosphaerenreservat-rhoen.de/englisch/indexengl.html
Nanda Devi (India)
Beuret, J-E. 2006. a) Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère. Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
Rao.K.S., Nautiyal S., Maikhuri R.K., Saxena K.G. 2000. Management
conflicts in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India, In
Mountain Research and Development, vol.20, n°4, 320-323.
Dana (Jordan)
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: special places for people and
nature, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
Irani, K. ; Johnson, C. 2000. The Dana Project, Jordan. Protected
Areas in the North Africa/Middle East Region. PARKS. 10 (1),
IUCN.
Mananara Nord (Madagascar)
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: special places for people and
nature, UNESCO/MAB, Paris.
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
Raondry, N., Klein, M., Rakotonirina, V. S. 1995. La Réserve de
biosphère de Mananara-Nord (1987-1994): Bilan et perspectives.
Documents de travail, n°6. Programme de coopération Sud
- Sud pour un développement socio-économique respectueux de
l’environnement dans les tropiques. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2001. Enquête sur les mécanismes institutionnels.
Sierra de Huautla (Mexico)
Nomination Form Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve (2006)
Sierra Gorda (Mexico)
Nomination Form Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (2001)
http://www.sierragordamexico.org/es/
Arganeraie (Morroco)
GTZ . 2003. Exploiter pour conserver: Comment les animaux
d’élevage et plantes cultivées délaissés constituent un potentiel
économique pour le développement rural.
http://www2.gtz.de/agrobiodiv/download/ncb-franz.pdf
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: special places for people and
nature. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
Cape West Coast (South Africa)
Nomination Form Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (1999)
http://www.capebiosphere.co.za/
Waterberg (South Africa)
Nomination Form Waterberg Biosphere Reserve (2001)
Menorca (Spain)
Castro F. S. 1994. An overview of the Spanish network of biosphere
reserves. Comité espagnol MAB. Madrid. 157 pp.
Castello I. V.; Ignasi J.; Lopez L. A. 1993. Coordination mechanisms
in the Spanish biosphere reserves. Nature and Resources,(29 )
1-4: 12-16.
Periodic review: Menorca Biosphere Reserve (2006)
Montseny (Spain)
Castro F. S. 1994. An overview of the Spanish network of biosphere
reserves. Comité espagnol MAB. Madrid. 157 pp.
Castello I. V.; Ignasi J.; Lopez L. A. 1993. Coordination mechanisms
in the Spanish biosphere reserves. Nature and Resources, (29)
1-4: 12-16.
http://www.diba.es/parcsn/parcs/videos.asp?parc=0&m=268
Sinharaja (Sri Lanka)
Entlebuch (Switzerland)
Nomination Form Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve 2001
Selective bibliography
Huttel, C., Touber, L., Clüsener-Godt, M. 2002. La Réserve de
biosphère de Mananara Nord, un défi pour la conservation et le
développement intégrés. UNESCO, Paris. 188 pp.
UNESCO Biosphere Entlebuch Lucerne Switzerland: Conservation
– Development, (2002), Regional Management Entlebuch
Biosphere Reserve Switzerland.
http://www.biosphere.ch
Dyfi (United Kingdom)
Author: Peter Frost, Administrative Contact for Dyfi Biosphere
Reserve. Countryside Council for Wales, Maes-y-Ffynnon,
Fford Penrhos, Bangor. LL57 2DN Gwynedd. United Kingdom
http://www.ecodyfi.org.uk/
Southern Appalachian (United States of America)
Van Sickle, C., Turner, R. S. 2001. The southern appalachian man
and biosphere program: a model for management need-based
research.
Nomination Form Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve (1988)
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and
nature. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
http://samab.org/
Bañados del Este (Uruguay)
Beuret, J-E. 2006 a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère. Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques. UNESCO/MAB.
Can Gio (Vietnam)
Beuret, J-E. 2006 a). Environnement et Développement mis en
dialogue dans les réserves de biosphère, Rapport technique et
Recueil des fiches techniques, UNESCO/MAB.
UNESCO. 2001. Enquête sur les mécanismes institutionnels.
UNESCO. 2002. Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and
nature. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. 2003. Réserves de biosphère: Des lieux privilégiés pour les
hommes et la nature. UNESCO, Paris.
Periodic review: Sinharaja Biosphere Reserve (2004).
79
ADEATUR:
Agro and Ecotourism Association of Rocha (Uruguay)
CBD:
Convention on Biological Diversity
Research Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (France)
CIRAD:
International Agricultural Research Centre for Development (France)
CNRS:
National Centre for Scientific Research (France)
Acronyms
CEMAGREF:
80
ENGREF:
National School of Water and Forest Engineering (France)
ENSAR:
National School of Agriculture of Rennes (France)
EU:
European Union
FAO:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FPSNSM:
Fundacion Pro-sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Colombia)
GEF:
Global Environment Facility
GIS:
Geographic Information System
GTZ:
German Technical Cooperation for Development
IFB:
French Biodiversity Institute
INRA:
National Institute for Agricultural Research (France)
IRD:
Institute of Research for Development (France)
MAB:
Intergovernmental Man and the Biosphere Programme
MNHN:
National Museum of Natural History (France)
OECD:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
NGO:
Non-governmental Organization
PNR:
Regional Natural Parks (France)
UNDP:
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP:
United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO:
United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture
Biosphere reserves - Technical notes - 2-2007
DIALOGUE in biosphere reserves: REFERENCES, PRACTICES and EXPERIENCES
'PSUIJSUZZFBSTUIF."#1SPHSBNNFQBSUJDVMBSMZUISPVHI
JUT8PSME/FUXPSLPG#JPTQIFSF3FTFSWFTIBTJOJUJBUFEBOE
TVQQPSUFETUVEJFTPOUIFJOUFSBDUJPOTCFUXFFOIVNBOTPDJFUJFT
BOEOBUVSBMSFTPVSDFTJOWBSJPVTDVMUVSBMBOETPDJPFDPOPNJD
DPOUFYUT
*OMJHIUPGUIFNBOZPCKFDUJWFTBTTJHOFEUPBCJPTQIFSF
SFTFSWFBOEUIFEJWFSTJUZPGTUBLFIPMEFSTJOTUJUVUJPOTBOEUIFJS
JOUFSFTUTCJPTQIFSFSFTFSWFTBSFSFTFBSDIBOEUSBJOJOHTJUFTGPSUIF
QSFWFOUJPOBOENBOBHFNFOUPGDPO¿JDUTMJOLFEUPUIFDIBMMFOHFT
PGDPOTFSWBUJPOBOETVTUBJOBCMFVTFPGCJPEJWFSTJUZ
5IFXFBMUIBOEEJWFSTJUZÊPGUIFEJBMPHVFFYQFSJFODFT
BOEQSBDUJDFTQSFTFOUFEIFSFTIPVMECFGVSUIFSFOSJDIFEUISPVHI
UIFDPOUSJCVUJPOTPGPUIFSCJPTQIFSFSFTFSWFTJOPSEFSUPGPTUFS
UIFJSEJTTFNJOBUJPOXJUIJOUIF8PSME/FUXPSLBOEUISPVHIPVU
UIFXPSME5IF%JWJTJPOPG&DPMPHJDBMBOE&BSUI4DJFODFTUISPVHI
JUTJOUFSHPWFSONFOUBM."#1SPHSBNNFUIVTXJTIFTUPNBLF
BTVCTUBOUJWFDPOUSJCVUJPOUPUIFDIBMMFOHFTPGCJPEJWFSTJUZ
NBOBHFNFOUJONVMUJVTFTQBDFTXJUIBOPCKFDUJWFPG
TVTUBJOBCMFEFWFMPQNFOU

Download Report

Dialogue in biosphere reserves - UNESDOC

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz